psood0nym
Bluelighter
I for one thought we were talking about danger relative to other drugs. Yes, some of the statistics are drawn from surveys (which are sort of like anecdotes but not really), some are drawn from hospital logs, others from arrest records, etc. The thing is, though, that's true for all drugs. The methodology for assessing drug risk is roughly the same, or averages out to roughly the same across studies of different recreational drugs, so any "actual" proportional risk differences between various drugs should be roughly conserved.
It all depends on what question we're asking about these drugs. For example, look at the "harm to others bar" of methamphetamine compared to alcohol on the graph in my last post. If everyone who used alcohol suddenly decided to get high on meth at the same frequency they currently get buzzed I'm pretty certain the meth bar would dwarf alcohol. I assume, however, the graph is largely reflective of stats that are examining the "actual" prevalence of societal problems owed to different drugs statistically inferred as being "out in the world." People don't use meth as much as alcohol to a large degree because it's not accepted socially, they've seen those "before and after" photos, it's not as available, etc, and so standardizing their frequency of use would not reflect current social realities. Each of us lives in social reality, so if we want to use statistics to draw inferences about actual practices then the fact that psychedelics aren't used in practice as much as opiates, alcohol, stimulants, dissociatives (at least ketamine), etc. IS a reason why they are less dangerous, because how the average person uses them impinges on how the new user is likely to use them as well. Therefore, I think saying psychedelic use is less dangerous than the use of other drugs is largely a defensible statement.
Anecdotal counter evidence regarding the risks of the newer designer psychedelics can be explained to a degree because: 1) trip disasters make better stories; 2) people feel compelled to warn others of the risk of a drug about which little is known; 3) disasters stand out in the mind of the reader more than hunky dory stories, etc. I think we can make a legitimate case that the new drugs ARE more dangerous than LSD or mushrooms because: A) they need to be measured by end users more carefully; B) they have steeper dose response curves, etc. but there's no way for us to factor out 1 though 3 ect. above from A, B, etc. above using current data. Yet there is reason to believe the results from LSD, mushrooms, and mescaline will generalize to the designer psychedelics to a degree, especially to most currently available designer tryptamines (DPT, 4-subs) IF used properly. Despite horror stories of ignorance most people seem to largely be observing some degree of caution IN PRACTICE. Granted, when we talk about designer drugs like mephedrone the degree of caution seems to wane substantially. This brings up another point: what about comparing the dangers of new designer 5HT psychedelics to new designer drugs from other classes for which A, B etc. above are also relevant? I think if proper studies were done here we'd find the same pattern as with established illegal drugs -- new designer 5-HT psychedelics again would carry fewer relative risks compared to new designer stimulants, empathogens, dissociatives, etc. However, it's also true that if ultra-potent psychedelics like NBOMes were classed as 5-HT psychedelics (as they are), it's likely that the statistical risk would shift somewhat. This shift would owe more to ultra-potency and uncertainty in dosing than the fact that NBOMes are psychedelics. In this instance some greater degree of statistical control (factoring for high potency using potent drugs of other classes (say a hypothetical fentanyl analogue) would need to occur for relative comparison. Granted, such ultra-potent drugs from other classes are not on the market so this couldn't even be done.
I agree with this to a point, which is why I acknowledged it in my post about Dr. Nutt's findings. I think, however, agnetha's point raised earlier that states we "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" is relevant here (if I understand it correctly). Even if we aren't observing some standard by comparing, say, some extraordinary subset of 2C-E users getting high on 2C-E as often as the average crack addict gets high and comparing their mental and physical health outcomes to each other, to a degree such standardization would be contrived because the studies on these drugs intend to describe social reality, not isolate a factor in a physics experiment.
It all depends on what question we're asking about these drugs. For example, look at the "harm to others bar" of methamphetamine compared to alcohol on the graph in my last post. If everyone who used alcohol suddenly decided to get high on meth at the same frequency they currently get buzzed I'm pretty certain the meth bar would dwarf alcohol. I assume, however, the graph is largely reflective of stats that are examining the "actual" prevalence of societal problems owed to different drugs statistically inferred as being "out in the world." People don't use meth as much as alcohol to a large degree because it's not accepted socially, they've seen those "before and after" photos, it's not as available, etc, and so standardizing their frequency of use would not reflect current social realities. Each of us lives in social reality, so if we want to use statistics to draw inferences about actual practices then the fact that psychedelics aren't used in practice as much as opiates, alcohol, stimulants, dissociatives (at least ketamine), etc. IS a reason why they are less dangerous, because how the average person uses them impinges on how the new user is likely to use them as well. Therefore, I think saying psychedelic use is less dangerous than the use of other drugs is largely a defensible statement.
Anecdotal counter evidence regarding the risks of the newer designer psychedelics can be explained to a degree because: 1) trip disasters make better stories; 2) people feel compelled to warn others of the risk of a drug about which little is known; 3) disasters stand out in the mind of the reader more than hunky dory stories, etc. I think we can make a legitimate case that the new drugs ARE more dangerous than LSD or mushrooms because: A) they need to be measured by end users more carefully; B) they have steeper dose response curves, etc. but there's no way for us to factor out 1 though 3 ect. above from A, B, etc. above using current data. Yet there is reason to believe the results from LSD, mushrooms, and mescaline will generalize to the designer psychedelics to a degree, especially to most currently available designer tryptamines (DPT, 4-subs) IF used properly. Despite horror stories of ignorance most people seem to largely be observing some degree of caution IN PRACTICE. Granted, when we talk about designer drugs like mephedrone the degree of caution seems to wane substantially. This brings up another point: what about comparing the dangers of new designer 5HT psychedelics to new designer drugs from other classes for which A, B etc. above are also relevant? I think if proper studies were done here we'd find the same pattern as with established illegal drugs -- new designer 5-HT psychedelics again would carry fewer relative risks compared to new designer stimulants, empathogens, dissociatives, etc. However, it's also true that if ultra-potent psychedelics like NBOMes were classed as 5-HT psychedelics (as they are), it's likely that the statistical risk would shift somewhat. This shift would owe more to ultra-potency and uncertainty in dosing than the fact that NBOMes are psychedelics. In this instance some greater degree of statistical control (factoring for high potency using potent drugs of other classes (say a hypothetical fentanyl analogue) would need to occur for relative comparison. Granted, such ultra-potent drugs from other classes are not on the market so this couldn't even be done.
Last edited:
they lent this thread some badly needed class and intelligent perspective (even if only you and I understood where you were coming from), salute.