Superiority

[botfly]

I know exactly what you mean, it's the same with with cannabis users.
For saying psychedelics are supposed to open your mind there sure are some narrow minded psychedelic users who can't fathom the thought that some people just don't like hallucinating...

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

Sorry to hear about your friends Aetherius. I know how shitty it can be to lose friends like that.

That does sound like a cool documentary though.
I wish more people understood mindfulness and emptiness.
Those habits are the only things that have ever actually grounded me when I was getting too close to it.

Also, lol, the main similarity I notice between potheads and psychonauts is the insistence, to the point of absolute disregard for evidence contrary, that the drugs are 100% safe or just straight up good for you.

 

[IamMe90]

You seem to keep pushing an empirical point that is not supported by the body of evidence out there though (ironic given your analysis of pot/psychedelic users?). For the most part, the body of evidence we have available overwhelmingly suggests that psychedelic drugs are not dangerous, and neither is marijuana. Every case has its outliers, any activity is subject to the same misuse that anything else is given human personality flaws (ie TV, food addiction etc) but these are all just "dangerous" in the same basic sense that anything can be dangerous to anyone. Addictive and 2-dimensional euphoric narcotics like GABA drugs and opiod drugs are most definitely physiologically and psychologically more dangerous on the whole than psychedelic drugs. Sorry, I just don't even think this is arguable until someone in this thread produces some hard evidence to the contrary. I'm fairly sure I even read awhile back the results of a few studies conducted that demonstrated just how low the risk of having a psychedelic drug-induced psychosis or having flashbacks or serious HPPD was.

 

[agnetha]

IamMe90, I think it's better to be precise here. I almost died twice of an psych OD and a friend if mind slipped into a weeklong episode of paranoid delusions last easter Sunday, very much like the incidents Aetherius Rimor described, triggered by a psych dose well within the accepted dose range. She almost lost her job and her independence. You may argue that my first example tells more about my idiocy than the dangers of psychs, and the second just points to some underlying psychiatric condition my friend most likely had all along and just precipitated that moment.

I'm for some reason absolutely sure that I'll never develop a psychiatric condition from psychs btw. This maybe misguided conviction accompanies me from the first trip on. My friend though....not so sure, she's inconsolable that the doors to this world have closed forever, the risk of another episode precludes another attempt at taking them. And I'm pretty confident to never again wake up in an ER or die from psychs, and stick to a very strict methodology of taking them to make sure of that, but the incidents above happened and could very well have ended in a way depriving me of a second chance.

Maybe its misleading to state they are dangerous, but they sure as hell are a risky proposition. Doesn't help to argue that reckless use, ignorance or users ill fitted to explore this experiences are really at the bottom of this pretty massive body of anecdotal evidence, but you can't seperate the sociological and cultural phenomenon of their actual use from the molecule and its pharmacological properties and toxicology as it presents itself on the drawing board. Of course you'd get a lot less train wrecks if their use would be embedded in a society facilitating and enforcing their responsible use, but in Europe, the US and large part of Asia we're miles away from that state of affairs.

 

[IamMe90]

IamMe90, I think it's better to be precise here. I almost died twice of an psych OD and a friend if mind slipped into a weeklong episode of paranoid delusions last easter Sunday, very much like the incidents Aetherius Rimor described, triggered by a psych dose well within the accepted dose range. She almost lost her job and her independence.

If you want to be precise, give me statistical data on how many people actually take psychedelics and how many people have incidents like the two described above. Until then, it's just anecdote.

You may argue that my first example tells more about my idiocy than the dangers of psychs, and the second just points to some underlying psychiatric condition my friend most likely had all along and just precipitated that moment.

I don't even have to argue that, all I have to argue is that her case is an extreme outlier. There are so many terrible things that can occur as a result of a plethora of activities we take for granted - accidents, food allergies, adverse pharmaceutical reactions/side effects, etc - and we do them all the time. If the statistical data doesn't suggest that the risks associated with psychedelics are reasonably probable, then it isn't justifiable to call psychedelics "risky" pejoratively (not everything that has a risk is "risky" in that sense, or everything would be risky and the term would be meaningless).

Doesn't help to argue that reckless use, ignorance or users ill fitted to explore this experiences are really at the bottom of this pretty massive body of anecdotal evidence

Massive? Please direct me to this massive body of anecdotal evidence of the dangers of psychedelic drugs. As far as I'm aware, there is no such statistically massive body of anecdotal evidence. The great, great majority of reports of bad psychedelic experiences I've read are just that, bad experiences, not dangerous ones.

but you can't seperate the sociological and cultural phenomenon of their actual use from the molecule and its pharmacological properties and toxicology as it presents itself on the drawing board.

First of all, I don't think that I need to separate the sociological and cultural phenomenon of their actual use from the pharmacology, because I don't think that a majority or even a significant minority of people use psychedelics dangerously (that is not to say that they aren't used irresponsibly often). But just because of the pharmacology and toxicology we have an incredible amount of reports of irresponsible use where the users are just fine, because the drugs are so physiologically forgiving in the first place.

Of course you'd get a lot less train wrecks if their use would be embedded in a society facilitating and enforcing their responsible use, but in Europe, the US and large part of Asia we're miles away from that state of affairs.

Agreed. Luckily, I think the harm arising from irresponsible use of psychedelics is much less substantial than that arising from irresponsible use of street narcotics and pharmaceuticals.

 

[botfly]

^it doesn't matter if there's no empirical evidence or whatever saying they're dangerous, the point is that they have a strong effect on your mind and some people can develop mental illnesses from them. So all we're pointing out is that they are not that same as having a cup of tea like most psych users seem to think. It's not difficult to understand.

 

[IamMe90]

^it doesn't matter if there's no empirical evidence or whatever saying they're dangerous, the point is that they have a strong effect on your mind and some people can develop mental illnesses from them. So all we're pointing out is that they are not that same as having a cup of tea like most psych users seem to think. It's not difficult to understand.

That is asinine, people don't just "develop" hitherto nonexistent mental illnesses from the use of psychedelics and even exacerbation of mental illnesses represents an incredibly minute portion of users. That's why you can warn people that "psychedelics may exacerbate underlying mental illnesses" but to simply warn people that they're "dangerous" is fear-mongering and also unsubstantiated, kinda like what the DEA does %)

 

[botfly]

So you're trying to tell me that a sudden extreme change in your perception of reality could not possibly have an effect on one's state of mind? You can feed anyone lsd from your child to your grandpa and no-one will have any psycholigical issues or do something stupid like trying to fly out of windows? Okay mate.

 

[SONN]

I think the best argument to be made is that if these drugs were used in safe settings under supervision of close friends/family the likelihood of anyone exacerbating their 'underlying mental illness' would be little to none.

IMO under these conditions almost anyone could have a profound psychedelic experience even if they are one of those people who 'doesn't like hallucinating.'

You could start with extremely small doses and titrate your way up so that the person can get used to the headspace before it became visual or simply use those small doses in the midst of other types of calming and soothing therapies.

 

[IamMe90]

So you're trying to tell me that a sudden extreme change in your perception of reality could not possibly have an effect on one's state of mind? You can feed anyone lsd from your child to your grandpa and no-one will have any psycholigical issues or do something stupid like trying to fly out of windows? Okay mate.

I said nothing like that. I certainly didn't say anywhere that a sudden change in your perception could not possibly have an effect on one's state of mind; they wouldn't be psychedelic if these drugs didn't affect our mind states. However, I have not seen any convincing argument, anecdotal or statistical evidence that suggests that there is a significant risk of someone trying to "fly out of the window" while under the influence of a psychedelic drug; at least no more risk than any other substance or activity period presents in its own way. I also haven't actually read a single report of a truly healthy individual jumping out of a window while under the influence of a psychedelic, by the way; sounds like the urban legends surrounding LSD after it got criminalized in the late '60s, "mate."

 

[Aetherius Rimor]

Despite my personal experiences with such rare occasions, I agree with IamMe90.

Asthma treatments can be known to increase risks of an asthma attack, doesn't mean that they are not deemed "safe for use".

Rare side effects are not the determinant of whether or not a substance is safe. Typical side effects are. Warnings of these side effects should be present as a caution and so people won't be blind sided by them should they occur, but that does not mean it's not safe. Inability to perform normal tasks does not make them not safe, in the same way that many medications have a "do not operate heavy machinery" warning on them.

Their "unsafety" is an exaggeration due to a fear related bias the majority of humans have.

Consider the following scenario:

1. Children are statistically more likely to die by drowning or suffer serious injury at a friends house with a pool, than a friends house with a gun.
2. Drowning is less shocking than a gunshot injury.
3. Despite the increased danger, many parent's don't have a second thought of allowing their child to go to a friends house with a pool, but are more likely to have concerns about them going to a friends house with a gun in the home.

Logically, you should prefer your child to go to the house with a gun, rather than the house with a pool. However our biases weigh the lower chance of an emotionally shocking injury as far worse than the increased chance of a less shocking injury.

A friend losing their mind and becoming someone they are not, is far more shocking than someone going to the hospital for a drug overdose. So our fear bias kicks in and we weight result much higher than it statistically should be.

 

[agnetha]

I think the best argument to be made is that if these drugs were used in safe settings under supervision of close friends/family the likelihood of anyone exacerbating their 'underlying mental illness' would be little to none.

IMO under these conditions almost anyone could have a profound psychedelic experience even if they are one of those people who 'doesn't like hallucinating.'

You could start with extremely small doses and titrate your way up so that the person can get used to the headspace before it became visual or simply use those small doses in the midst of other types of calming and soothing therapies.

The conditions you describe were met in this case (not quite a clinical or therepeuticalcsetting, but come on heh), and the the individual we're talking about isn't a hardcore psychonaut but certainly not drug naive and has tolerated high doses of in part far more powerful compounds remarkably well. Set and setting were as good as can be expected, or so I thought. I wouldn't have embarked on the venture if I had had any doubts about that, no way In view of my history.

For now I refrain from introducing people to psychs, though that is a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm shellshocked tbh. I'm far from fearmongering I hope, but one should be aware of the toll this kind of experiments can exact from healthy adults trying to be responsible going about it.

Edit: IamMe, I think you're taking unnecessarily offense with my choice of words, we're not that far apart actually. Allow me the idiosyncratic use of some words and keep in mind english isn'nt my native language. And well massive....browsing erowid and reading some threads here, I couldn't help using the word, haha. Anyway:
I think the whole statics based argument is a little bit beside the point. A bit like arguing that communism is worse than fascism by comparing the number of Hitlers and Stalins victims.

Skiing for example is a risky part time (I'm sticking to my flawed definition of the word, please excuse), people are getting injured, some of them killed, and many of those accidents could have been prevented by following simple safety-guidelines. Am I arguing the sport should be prohibited, or people generally discouraged to take it up? No, certainly not. Would I ever denie that it can be dangerous to exercise it? No, that would be completely foolish.

Of course the hospitals in my neck of the woods are full with patients dying from the longterm consequences of their alcohol abuse, thousands of them actually. Does that make the perils connected with the use of psychedelics look any more attractive? No, don't think so. I take them because they are infinitely more fascinating and rewarding than booze ever will be, and for me personally the risk is not neglieable but acceptable.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

Wow lol, people are asinine. IAmMe90, you keep asking for stats, yet provide none. Moreover, don't you think stats are a bit skewed anyway? Like, considering hospitalizations aren't something many people freaking out want, and avoid at all costs. Plus, anecdotal evidence is just as reliable as statistics. Plus, you cannot possibly even try to deny that psychedelics can drastically affect your cognition. I think you just troll this site to be honest. I don't think I've ever seen a post where you haven't been just blatantly opposite of common reason lol..

 

[Aetherius Rimor]

Plus, anecdotal evidence is just as reliable as statistics.

....how the... I don't even know how to respond to this.

 

[IamMe90]

Plus, anecdotal evidence is just as reliable as statistics. Plus, you cannot possibly even try to deny that psychedelics can drastically affect your cognition. I think you just troll this site to be honest. I don't think I've ever seen a post where you haven't been just blatantly opposite of common reason lol..

And you're calling me asinine? All I did was make an articulate post. I didn't even insult anyone, for Christ's sake. Don't get on me about "trolling" when you're too lazy to make a proper response and the one bit of argument in your paragraph is "anecdotal evidence is just as reliable as statistics." That's seriously so asinine and fundamentally wrong I have to wonder if you're trolling...

edit: I'm asking for stats because the burden of proof is on your side; you guys are making the claim that goes against the scientific grain that psychedelics are "dangerous" substances. I simply want you to provide some hard evidence to back up these claims other than "lawl one time this one person I knew went CrAzY when she tripped 2 hard"

 

[psood0nym]

Yeah, anecdotes are one of the least reliable sources of information. They don't assess prevalence at all, whereas at least statistics have a rationale for why they are assumed to reflect population parameters.

I did a quick half-assed search. While this is merely a summary of NIDA stats in a NY Times article, and it's just about LSD rather than all psychedelics including newer designer drugs, it gets the point across (and the point isn't really controversial so I don't think we need a rigorous examination of the hard stats):

About 10 million Americans have tried LSD at least once, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. That is half the number that are thought to have tried cocaine, but more than three times the number who have sampled heroin. Compared with people who use the other drugs, proportionally far fewer people have gotten into trouble, legally or medically, with LSD.

Article

In the context of the article "medically" seems to include mental hospital visits. And then of course there's the famous Dr. Nutt graph showing the relative harm to others and harm to users for many different drugs. While some of those estimates look off to me because they're not reflecting a standard frequency of use and dosage in comparing drugs (I don't know if that info exists, TBH), the info about LSD and mushrooms is consistent with the large body of other conclusions I've read of about them.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

Oh my, statistics measure quantity, not the effects. All I meant to say is that there aren't surveys done on the prevalence of mental issues in the users of research chemicals and other hallucinogenic drugs aside from LSD and.psylocibin. Where do you all think that the scientists and researchers conducting surveys get their information anyway?? Anecdotes, from people. Like, seriously, how do you not get that? Lol.
So yeah, I guess to clarify, obviously statistics have greater empirical value (assuming the data is collected efficiently and within a representative population), but that didn't discredit the validity of the vast amounts of information cached in the internet's drug using communities, nor does it mean that the multiple accounts in this thread told of awful consequences can be discredited.

It isn't against the grain to say that psychedelics carry a risk to mental stability, it's a well known fact that anything you're ingesting to radically alter your perception can affect you. Neuroplasticity is a remarkable phenomena.

The burden of proof rests with both the affirmative and the negative; information is the truth, not the inferences or positions drawn from it.

P.S.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again.. Pretty sure people who use crack do it more often than most of us take hallucinogens. Without standardization, research results have little empirical validity.

 

[Aetherius Rimor]

Butane can be used as a drug...

 

[Aetherius Rimor]

Without standardization, research results have little empirical validity.

That is EXACTLY what separates researched statistics compared to run of the mill anecdotes.

A standardized questionnaire of 10,000 people, shows a statistical prevalence in anecdotes -far more- reliable as evidence than one person's story (considered an anecdote, not a statistic).

Statistics based on hospital visits are based on -documented cases- by licensed medical doctors and nurses. Sure, also can be boiled down to "anecdote" if you so choose, but has a much higher value as evidence than one person's unverified, undocumented story.

Also

The burden of proof rests with both the affirmative and the negative;

It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. It's up to me to prove to you a black swan exists if I make that assertion, not you to prove there isn't. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, doesn't happen, or isn't an issue. You can prove a positive however, and we are proving a positive albeit LOW incidence of harm associated with psychedelics. It's up to you to prove that there is more than that, and a few people's stories or speculations does not count as evidence.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Image Related (Science!): http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/126/314/3cd8a33a.png?1306264975

 

[bluedolphin]

Psychedelic drugs are superior to all other drugs. That is, the best psychedelic drugs. Some psychedelic drugs are pretty terrible.

Drugs like LSD and mushrooms inspire cultural revolutions, spirituality, and musical and creative genius.

What other kinds of drugs are there... Uppers? Okay they make you faster but damage your health. Downers? Okay they make you mellow out but are addictive and damage your soul.

Then their are medicines which are great for treating certain conditions.

But psychedelic drugs are also just sort of, way cool. At least the good ones. I don't even think DMT is "all that". But LSD, 4-ho-DMT, DOC, Mescaline and a few others... yeah, those are amazing drugs and they likely won't hurt you. You can even learn a lot from using them.

And Cannabis? Well, that's just good natural medicine. Not really addictive, makes most people feel good and have a good time, and then have a good sleep. So yeah, I'd say that's a superior drug.