Remember this is Australia - a very conservative country. Marijuana possession remains a criminal offence here in most places, with minimal sign this will change any time soon.
When they say "for medical usage", they mean it.
This is not just a nice acceptable easing in of liberal recreational drugs policy.
Don't expect to be buying party drugs from the chemist before going out on saturday night. Despite the fact that this is precisely what should be happening - nice, safe, clean party drugs instead of god knows what probably methamphetamine/ice.
I would peg Australia more as an authoritarian liberal country rather than conservative. Most states in the US are far more conservative than Australia.
Australia IMHO has never broken out of the colonial mindset, where the government knows what is best for you. Beyond drugs, that includes pervasive censorship of movies, books, video games, Internet etc. The lack of First and Fourth amendment style protections means that ultimately the government has the final call on these topics, and for whatever reason, neither of the two primary political parties seem inclined to change the status quo.
The hypocrisy of it is quite transparent. Last I checked, possession of cannabis and X rated pornography is illegal in all states and territories of Australia, except for the Australian Capital Territory which is the equivalent of DC. Which of course is where most of the politicians are.
> The hypocrisy of it is quite transparent. Last I checked, possession of cannabis and X rated pornography is illegal in all states and territories of Australia, except for the Australian Capital Territory which is the equivalent of DC. Which of course is where most of the politicians are.
Not to mention the pervasiveness of cocaine throughout the community, from tradies to barristers, doctors etc. The hypocritical nanny state mentality that keeps these politicians acting this way is driven by our community and it is sickening.
Just look at the price of cocaine compared to other similar countries (UK) and it's obvious that while drug use exists in Australia, that specific drug is used less frequently.
Higher price is a function of demand and scarcity. Scarcity from more difficult smuggling routes and demand from popularity. Although you are correct insofar as a lot of people can’t afford to do it regularly.
> Australia IMHO has never broken out of the colonial mindset, where the government knows what is best for you.
I’m not sure where you are from, but Australia doesn’t share the blind scepticism of government you see in many other countries.
Lots of Australians are politically engaged and generally our politicians are quite accessible. It’s not uncommon to see your federal or state member in the community shopping or eating or just generally living their lives.
Our governments are not perfect, in fact some times they do truly reprehensible things, but it still feels like things can change and get better here
The Australians I know tend to have this weird cognitive dissonance where they bemoan the nanny state they live in, and then complain about the lack of rules in the other countries they visit
Is it really cognitive dissonance that we're assessing laws individually based on merit, rather than prescribing to simple-minded political ideologies focused on vague concepts like more/less laws?
'nanny state' is almost a shibboleth to communicate a particular flavour of centre-right political view in Australia. Using 'Nanny state' usually communicates someone supports a tough on crime agenda, cuts to social and environmental spending, cuts to regulation. It's a pro business, low tax, tough on property crime view point. Often it actually involves considerable government spending increases on more police and business subsidies, that is often parodied as "socialism for me but not for thee"
I'm an Australian, and don't think that quite nails the dissonance. We're comfortable with being a relatively authoritarian relatively liberal country, because we believe that the government is competent and under our control, and that the sanctions that the government enforces are just a sacrifice we must make to common democratic project, but then ask an Australian - what do think of the current government and the answer is always / at all times, that they are are rabble of incompetent petty thieves rorting the nation.
(Except, actually, I'm kind of happy with Penny Wong as foreign minister)
I think the political parties don’t change the status quo because as you note, most Australians share this mindset.
It was very revealing from overseas looking in during Covid, where there was (proverbial) dancing on the graves of expats locked out of the country for 2+ years. Should have come home when the big boss in Canberra said to, mate!
I think the word you might be looking for is "paternalistic". I think Australia is among the most authoritarian of the 'Western' countries, with little checks and balances on investigative power or protections for free speech, among other civil rights.
It remains criminal to have any THC in your system when driving even with a prescription though. With no meaningful way to test if someone has consumed THC in the past 5 hours vs the night before it makes it a useless medical aid for anyone who has to drive, which outside of inner suburbs of Melbourne & Sydney is the vast majority of people in Australia.
> It remains criminal to have any THC in your system when driving even with a prescription though
Rightly so. I mean maybe it’s too strict (i.e. you’re totally sober but still will be penalized for having anything show up in your blood) but in general driving under THC influence is as bad as driving on alcohol, you could get yourself and others killed.
> driving under THC influence is as bad as driving on alcohol
It's really not. There have been tests done by a government transport regulatory agency (in an EU country), comparing THC, alcohol and sober driving.
While alcohol promotes reckless driving (i know what i'm doing, i've got it, even if i don't), driving under THC is different, people are much more careful, even compared with the sober state. Slower driving, less incidents.
Alcohol makes you kill yourself and others, takes only few hours to get out of your system. THC makes you drive slower and more careful, can be found in blood days or weeks later (with no effect on cognition or faculties).
You're right that driving under any influence is (probably) not safe. But this seems like the same kind of stupid like testing your hair for drinking alcohol few months back.
Driving under the influence of THC is bad, but driving in the morning when you had THC last night while watching The Last of Us and being punished for that is ridiculous. I take it that THC shows up in your blood days after consuming, while the effects last hours.
I keep hearing this but surely if you presented your prescription in court the charges would be dropped? In my experience, magistrates are usually very reasonable. Police on the other hand...
There are plenty of completely legal prescription drugs you aren't allowed to drive on. Having a prescription will certainly not exonerate you if you're smoking a joint while driving, same as if you were caught taking Xanax while driving.
Whether magistrates would look at the levels of THC in your blood and be sympathetic to an argument that you had consumed a long time ago (and thus were no longer under the influence) is another question. I tend to think magistrates would side with the law as written in most cases, if the law explicitly prohibits driving with any amount of THC detectable in blood tests.
I don't think they're widely used yet, but there are iPad apps that police departments can use to test for marijuana impairment before administrating a THC test, similar to the "touch your nose, walk on this line" tests they use prior to pulling out a breathalyzer.
> Remember this is Australia - a very conservative country
Lol. Australia is less conservative than the US. We are much less religious, sex work is legal, and the drinking age is lower. Marijuana is widely available and accepted, and its legal status is irrelevant most of the time.
It's really a funny one. In many things we're very conservative, in others, much less so. And it's not quite clear why, in which areas. The US is a big place, and varies wildly state-to-state, so not worth comparing as a whole.
Yeah, it's patchy. Most porn being illegal and erectile dysfunction drugs not being covered by the PBS are two things that come to mind on the conservative side.
Even if it's not legalized for recreational use, MDMA is a potent, useful therapeutic treatment. This is a good thing, and hopefully the US government will get its head out of the dark ages and follow suit promptly.
The question is how many hoops does the patient have to jump through to get the treatment. In the US some doctors want their patients to try 10 drugs + ECT + TMS before prescribing ketamine for TRD.
For comparison.
A few years ago they tried to reschedule Amyl Nitrate (aka Poppers) a drug available as "Leather cleaner" in most sex shops. It was going to put on the same schedule as Heroin making it illegal to possess.
Then after complaint they completely changed to make it an over the counter drug. Although as far as I know it's still not available at any chemist I know of. But you can still buy it as Leather cleaner from few sex shops. (Less than it used to)
I am generally very pro-psychadelic - they seem like they can offer unique aid to people and they are not very prone to abuse. The only "downside" is that, because outcomes vary widely (though are generally not negative, simply unhelpful), it's hard to call them "medicine" in the way that, say, asprin is medicine. However, with the proper understanding, I'm hopeful they can be a really helpful tool for some people.
This is rationalizing rhetoric. Full-on psychedelic drugs are very different from any other psychiatric medicine. Users should know this difference and be prepared to mitigate the risks.
With psych drugs, the most common experience is that user takes them for a few weeks, and reports or doesn’t report some subtle change in their psyche. A bad experience is mostly limited to “didn’t work”. If the drug “doesn’t work” they stop using it and try something else.
With psychedelic drugs, the effect is 100% going to be felt within less than an hour, the effect will be very strong and is guaranteed to be one of the most memorable experiences of the user’s life. A bad experience could easily consist of being rapidly confronted with some deep truths about the user’s self and ego. There is a reason psychedelics have been linked to schizophrenia: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abst...
No kidding! Might help, but won't cause harm, and you probably won't have to take it forever, matbe even just once? I know LSD has been attributed some harmful effects, does psilocybin have no chance of psychotic breaks or ???
Everything I've learned about therapeutic psilocybin treatment is that the doses involved are actually quite a bit higher than I've ever done on a trip at home.
For example for psychedelic therapy with psilocybin, you would see a therapist a few times with no psilocybin, then you would have a session where you take something like the equivalent of 1 gram of dried mushrooms, and go through that session with the therapist. Then come back 1-2 weeks later and take something like a "heroic" dose or about 5 grams dried mushroom equivalent and go through that session with the therapist. Then you come back again two weeks later and have a sober session again to talk about all of it.
My understanding is that this is generally how the well respected research studies have gone. The most I have ever done myself is 2 grams dried mushroom equivalent, and I usually stay under 1.
I've done a heroic dose without help, and it is very hard to describe. However, I'll describe one part:
I went to the church of engineering and saw the manifest glory of all levels of abstraction that I understand and leverage to build _all_ at ONCE. I saw what I have been building in a new light ( https://www.adama-platform.com/ ). The absolute beauty of mathematics made me cry.
Ever since this event, I have been... ultra level. I'm just at peace. It's a wonderful experience. The whole "holy shit, I'm dying part..." was kind of rough.
Yeah the experience I have with heroic doses of psilocybin and LSD have been both the most challenging and the most transformative. People are scared by the idea of a bad (scary/unpleasant) trip, but it's important to remember that the drugs will wear off, and you can often take some deep learnings about yourself from that unpleasantness.
> Everything I've learned about therapeutic psilocybin treatment is that the doses involved are actually quite a bit higher than I've ever done on a trip at home
Where are you getting this info? All the good data I've seen is definitely not 5 grams dried. 20-25mg seems to be the sweet spot[1][2][3][4] which is around 2 grams[5].
Fuzzy memory from what I learned a few years ago. I guess i was really responding to the person who said “you’re not tripping balls in a therapeutic setting” - personally even 2 grams is “tripping balls” by my standards, but like I said 2 grams is the most I’ve ever done.
5 grams? Most people would absolutely lose their shit on that. Even an eighth of good mushrooms is enough to obliterate most people. Like complete ego death.
How long do these sessions last? What are the logistics? I’m very curious.
5 grams is the idiotic recommendation from Terence McKenna that people blindly follow because he was a good writer and had an almost psychedelic stand up routine with public speaking. He was basically a type of cult leader.
It is absolutely terrible advice. The advice should be "less is more" not this McKenna "heroic dose" bullshit like some kind of dosage sport.
> The advice should be "less is more" not this McKenna "heroic dose" bullshit like some kind of dosage sport.
The research backed advice is that set and setting are what really influences the experience.
The dose varies by person, tolerance, genetics of the fungi, and how deep one wants to go in the experience.
Taking 5 grams is not something to do in a whim, for pride or ego, or to keep up with anyone else. Better to ease into a bigger dose over time and not rush the experience.
Yes my understanding was a that ego death is the goal, and this is done in a controlled setting with a trusted therapist.
I have no experience with these dosage levels but what I have heard is that some people don’t experience the full ego death at 3.5 grams but most people do at 5 grams, and I have also heard that there isn’t much additional effect from higher doses. So the thinking is to make sure to get everyone over that edge.
However there are other forms of treatment and I’m only talking about what I learned a few years ago, I’ve not studied the latest work and I am not a medical professional at all.
I did a quick google search to find more info for you and it seems there’s a lot of new work being done. I didn’t find any convenient link with the answer to your question though.
> An eighth won’t give you ego death. 5 grams is about where you start getting kaleidoscopic visuals and good hallucinations
This is completely dependent on the strain[1] and potency of that batch. It also will depend on the person. To make any definitive statements on what people will experience on x grams is not an informed opinion.
Leafley is great but, I’ve babysat enough people to tell you that an eighth (3.5g) isn’t going to put anyone on a shroom trip. They’ll definitely get stoned and have some euphoria on the downslope
Update: p. Cubensis is what I’m most familiar with
it's interesting because someone replied to another comment of mine saying 2g is tripping balls for them haha. I think it greatly varies from person to person - I for instance seem to have a greater tolerance for psychedelics than most people I know. I guess it would also depend on what you consider a "trip".
I had to do four grams the first time. If you are on antidepressants or anti anxiety drugs you'll need more of it. Four grams was the lower therapeutic dose for me, after that I did six grams, but was able to get by for the remainder of the seven weeks on just two grams a day.
So in a clinical setting they actually give 20-30mg of psilocybin directly. This works out to approximately 3-5g of dried cubensis depending on their potency.
From my limited understanding, when a trip is used in a therapy session, it allows a patient to observe past trauma from an (emotional) distance, allowing them to process it. I can see how that would work. If trauma is so severe that you can’t even think of it, you’d push it away to the back of your mind where it would fester.
A therapeutic MDMA dose is basically equivalent to a recreational dose from the literature I've read. Not sure about psilocybin. Ketamine dosage definitely leads to tripping balls.
Not at all actually. I underwent 11 weeks of ketamine therapy. No hallucinations whatsoever, and I checked with others because I thought I was missing out! I felt physically drunk, but mentally absolutely clear. You may be thinking of a higher dose taken recreationally.
It's a fair question - but I would say yes? I know lots of people who have taken antidepressants and psychedelics and while both have been helpful the antidepressants have much more consistent effects (both person to person and dose to dose).
There is already a proper understanding of them - they are pharmacologicaly super safe. Beyond that, they should be available for anyone to try, whether you "need" them or not, in non hero dose amounts, in therapy settings.
Not arguing that caution shouldn’t be applied but I think it’s a bit more subtle than that. MDMA is prone to abuse in the recreational use sense, but it’s not really habit forming in the same way other drugs are. Sure, you can always find edge cases but compared to many other drugs (including alcohol) you’re unlikely to meet many daily users.
I somewhat agree. Daily use doesn't produce the high being sought, but it is very habit forming.
I know from personal experience and that of many people around me that doing molly every weekend quickly becomes a dependency and will mess you up very quickly.
In a therapy setting I'm sure risks are low, but I wouldn't make such black and white comparisons against alcohol or say, cocaine.
The reality of addiction is more than a function of frequency or tolerance and often comparing drugs directly is misleading.
I’d refer you to the extensive research on the topic by David Nutt, Professor of Pharmacology at Imperial College and former government drugs adviser. It’s possible to compare the ‘relative harm’ of substances, and they will, partly by the nature of the different ways they interact with our reward systems have different risk profiles. Again, not dismissing the risk, but sane drugs policy does require an evidence based assessment of how each substance impacts society and individuals.
I'm broadly pro harm reduction & happy about psych legalisarion, but the details of the Nutt studies are, aha, pretty Nutty. The most cited one just involved taking some doctors and asking them to yolo out some qualitative harm estimates. Not ideal evidence-based medicine.
(I would provide a close cite but I only recall from his book "drugs without the hot air" & am on mobile)
Yes I did, because 'drug abuse' isn't a useful or clearly defined term. Eg. if I search for a definition, in the first few hits I get:
"The use of illegal drugs or the use of prescription or over-the-counter drugs for purposes other than those for which they are meant to be used, or in excessive amounts."
"Substance abuse, also known as drug abuse, is a patterned use of a drug in which the user consumes the substance in amounts or with methods which are harmful to themselves or others, and is a form of substance related disorder. "
The first definition will vary based on your local laws, which as we have seen, are also subject to change. So if that's the meaning of the term 'drug abuse' it's not particularly useful to discuss since it's a technicality.
The common factor between the two definitions (excessive, harmful consumption) might be more useful to discuss. Which was why I chose to talk about that (rate of consumption, risk of addiction) specifically.
Um. No.
Outcomes don’t “vary widely” Studies of Psilocybin treatments for depression show remarkable success rates. In some cases a single dose paired with one session of talk therapy provides relief for 3 months. Compared to the next most viable treatment SSRIs that take 3 weeks to start working and come with danger of opposite effects if the treatment is stopped. Studies using MDMA to treat PTSD work surprisingly well.
The few studies done on using those two drugs in psychiatric settings show phenomenally positive results. I don’t know where you’re getting your information from but it’s not by reading the scientific studies.
We hope to be able to try it some day, since we have DID and heard that psychedelics can actually help a lot. It's a shame that we'll probably have to wait years, though...
Because they claim to have DID, and thus are saying that at that particular time, they are "fronting" with a persona they call Emily.
FWIW, a large amount of the psychiatric establishment believes DID to not be real, per se. Instead they think it can be caused by an especially suggestible patient responding to a therapist or other psychiatric professional's coaching. Essentially playing a role in the therapy (for genuine underlying problems!) that they believe they are expected to play.
DID in particular is sampled at about 1%. I’ve included an excerpt from the previous link that states this. That paper seems to align with clinical perspective, as it’s the same number that McLean Hospital uses in their public communication. McLean is a psychiatric teaching hospital as part of Harvard Medical. It is one of the few organizations in the country that specializes in treating severe trauma disorders.
“Random samples of the general population in Canada and Turkey (female sample, 50% of whom were illiterate) found a life-time prevalence of DD of 12.2% and 18.3% respectively. A general population study in New York State found a 1-year prevalence of 9.1% for the DD.2,32,39 In Canada and New York, prevalence of DID was 1.3% and 1.5% of the population. In Turkey, the lifetime prevalence of DID was 1.1%”
We're not just personas, but other than that, that is a fairly accurate description. I am indeed "fronting" right now. Logan (the holder of this account, and the username "LoganDark") is currently dormant for mental health reasons, so he's basically unconscious.
The claim is indeed just a claim at the moment, sadly, because we're not professionally diagnosed, though we are working towards a diagnosis. (Right now we're waiting for a call back from what is presumably the world's most overbooked mental health center. Only possible explanation for them taking this long.)
> FWIW, a large amount of the psychiatric establishment believes DID to not be real, per se. Instead they think it can be caused by an especially suggestible patient responding to a therapist or other psychiatric professional's coaching. Essentially playing a role in the therapy (for genuine underlying problems!) that they believe they are expected to play.
Believing DID isn't "real" (as in, is not caused by actual brain structure changes) is different than believing that it can be achieved through other means.
There are two main definitions of "DID", and it's important not to get them mixed up in cases like these: "DID the canonical disorder" (which we may or may not have), a direct consequence of certain types of structural dissociation[0], and "DID the set of symptoms" (which we definitely do have) as established in the DSM-5[1], which can apply regardless of root cause.
Some believe that "DID the canonical disorder" does not exist, and that it is akin to subconscious pretending (as you describe). Some believe that "DID the set of symptoms" can be achieved through different means than through structural dissociation in childhood. These beliefs are largely independent, although it would be weird to believe the first but not the second.
(I should add that believing you can willingly create certain specific symptoms of DID (such as plurality) is different from believing that you can create DID itself willingly. The development of DID itself must necessarily be non-willing due to its diagnosis as a disorder, but certain symptoms (such as plurality) can be developed through practice[2] without having any dissociative disorder.)
---
A lot of GPs don't even know DID exists. I once brought it up to our doctor and he had no idea what I was talking about. (I later found out that he had slipped "dissociative disorder" into our medical record. Sneaky~)
The "realness" of "DID the canonical disorder" is incredibly debatable. There is the theory of structural dissociation[0] but that only explains how it forms in the first place and not how it develops or functions over time.
Before learning of "plural" terminology[3] in the first place, for around 4 years, we simply knew ourselves as "multi-personality". We didn't appropriate anything because we had no access to that information.
But I do know for a fact that, since finding out about "plurality" and becoming much more public about it (including socializing in "plural" spaces), we have subconsciously appropriated many mechanisms as they were described to us, mainly when they were a better method of serving some function that we had to perform anyway, but also sometimes for other reasons. We've never been in therapy or even professionally diagnosed, so the development of plurality itself couldn't have been informed by medical professionals.
It was developed and strengthened through roleplay, though, as far as we know. The exact details of this are probably too anecdotal to recount in full detail, but in summary: we were allowed to express individually on a website with individual character profiles, and this is likely how we developed into our own people, or at least what prompted us to develop in this way. We didn't happen completely spontaneously, but we also didn't happen because we were shown or guided to act this way. Our brain had some sort of propensity to plurality already, before we ever knew anything about it.
I started signing my comments after I began posting to DID subreddits about a month ago. It's because I write differently than Logan does and also don't necessarily remember everything he does anymore (and vice versa), so it can be useful for people to know who they're talking to.
It's also useful for us to keep track of who wrote each one of our comments, personally, so if Logan sees something he doesn't remember for example, he'll know who's responsible.
It's not that fantastic. Australia has draconian driving laws. Any drugs found in your system is a fine and 3 month licensed suspension. Permanent loss on secondary offense.
So while we are getting medical access to psychedelics we can't actually use them if we also need to drive a car.
I'd be a pretty happy camper if I could pick up a decent dose of MDMA, Ket or LSD at a store when I occasionally feel like it. It's been years since I've had any and after moving to a new city, starting a family and "growing out of it", I feel like like I could use a good trip.
When I grow older, I would like to follow Ann Shulgin's directions, and have a nice MDMA trip with a loved one, not more often than once a season. Once every couple years maybe.
And a yearly shroom tea with friends while camping. Nature and trees are the most beautiful thing I've ever experienced while on mushrooms. It really makes you feel you're part of the ecosystem, and anything artificial sours the experience.
Honestly, legal or not, that is my plan. It is sad that I would have to give money to shady people rather than buying it in a store.
It's been a decade since my last hallucinogen, and I long for that place outside of myself, outside of the bounds of my senses where you can gaze to the whole of reality, in its entire magnificence.
I feel you. More on the tea while camping…
I found that a lovely afternoon in the park works too. It’s not the same as being in the woods, but it’s not like I feel like hiking while under the influence either.
It’s fun to see other human in the distance, and when it winds down you can just go home walking. Nobody is the wiser, logistically easy.
On the one hand, that sounds reasonable. On the other hand - I'm not exactly thrilled with the way people use the current that's already easily available at stores.
It’s still a little fresh but I called 911 on my Lyft driver last night. He had a woman (who I later learned was homeless) in the passenger seat slumped over, struggling to breathe, and very clearly in some kind of opioid overdose.
A sargeant from the police department eventually called me back from his cellphone to tell me they caught up with the driver and reversed her.
It was traumatic and all things being equal I’m with you - alcohol, opioids, benzodiazepines, etc do a lot of damage.
Exactly. I’ve “seen some things” but this was a new one.
He arrived to pick me up. She was in the front passenger seat and maybe a little out of it but that’s not exactly unusual…
A few minutes later, she was completely slumped over and taking gasping breaths. When I asked the driver if she was ok he said “She’s homeless and needs to get in to recovery but I’m taking care of her”. I can only assume (given the fairly rapid onset) he/she/them consumed drugs shortly before picking me up.
Needless to say, he wasn’t. After calling 911 I messaged the Lyft support team and provided pictures, etc of what (unfortunately) looks like a dead person. They followed the script and may or may not have done anything.
Meanwhile, the authorities took it very seriously (as I described) and likely saved her life.
Benzos are actually quite safe if you don't take them with anything else, and they're not very addictive. I've been taking them off and on for 15 years for panic disorder and never became dependent.
Your anecdote doesn’t equate to the truth, and the truth is, benzodiazepines are astoundingly addictive when abused, and dependency-forming even when following moderate treatment plans.
This. I have no judgement and plenty of my own demons (alcohol). That said, the swing in my lifetime on marijuana legalization (as one example) is telling.
From “smoke the devil’s lettuce and put your baby in the microwave” to “it’s natural, there are no negatives whatsoever” is very troubling. There is no free lunch and there absolutely are negative effects with all of these substances. Of course alcohol is the reigning champ for damage to society but marijuana, etc is creeping in with much less dramatic fashion.
In Canada, everything seems to be fine despite it being legal for a few year now? People who smoked up, still smoke, people who didn’t still don’t. Really depends on culture and how things are being legalized, obviously. I don’t think any reasonable person says it has no negatives, but it’s just being treated as alcohol.
More people smoke/ingest THC now than did before legalization, but drinking also dropped after legalization. Time will tell which is better, but certainly the short term after-effects from THC are far more pleasant than those from alcohol.
Cannabis and other popular psychoactive drugs (including alcohol, of course) have impact on everything from the dopamine reward system to fundamental perception.
If you take a few shots at 9 AM everyday few people will debate whether you have an alcohol misuse disorder and how problematic it is. Alcohol does it’s job - pumps your reward system and alters your perception of reality.
More and more, if you wake up at 9 AM and take a gummy, hit an incredibly high THC vape, etc it’s called medicine. While it won’t kill you and destroy your life as efficiently and ruthlessly as alcohol will I think there are fundamental issues and lasting effects from hacking dopamine rewards and using psychoactive substances to alter your reality.
The biggest difference here is how directly toxic alcohol is to the body (liver, brain, heart). Marijuana and others are substantially better from a “your body will physically give out from this” standpoint but that’s a low bar.
At one point in my life I was prescribed what I later learned to understand was an incredibly high dose of Klonopin. Drugs that bang on dopamine, GABA, etc are a sledge hammer for “life is suffering” the Buddha talked about. By the way, I‘ve met a lot of people with poly drug addiction issues and they respond to my klonopin experience with shock and amazement. FWIW it’s worth I fairly quickly realized the impact this sledge hammer hack was having on my life and quit it cold turkey. Now I know I could have died from it but I’m happy to be back to reality and process the struggle that is life with a scalpel instead of a sledge hammer.
Why do people feel the need to control other people’s substance intake? It’s not your life. If there’s no direct harm to you then it should be none of your business.
There's a difference between seeking to control and trying to recommend against. Same as people recommend you eat apples more than you eat chips, and are against portraying chips as healthy, without meaning that they'd want to ban them.
I agree there is a difference but the parent above specifically mentioned what is available in stores today as if to say they would be against allowing people to buy whatever drugs they want.
Prohibition does not stop usage. It just makes the drugs cut with more harmful substances. I wish people would understand that
In 2020, Oregon decriminalized (traffic ticket) for simple use and possession of :
- psilocybin <12 g
- MDMA <1 g or 5 pills
- LSD <40 units
Mescaline and LSD are worth considering for TRD and PTSD.
In Texas, delta 9, delta 8, and CBD are all de facto legalize if they originate from hemp. This is inconsistent because weed is still illegal and heavily criminalized (Texas is hyper-over-criminalized). It's like porn vs. prostitution: add a camera, and now it's magically legal in most of California and New Hampshire.
So proud right now at least one part of our government is doing things based in reason. We are usually so conservative and backward. Its great to know at least 1 part of the gov is functioning
Didn't they ban the Steam game "RimWorld" because it contained drug use and cultivation? Apparently, "smokeleaf plant" and "yayo" cultivation in a colony simulation game was too much for the Australian government to tolerate.
What a puzzling set of priorities for a nation to just casually accept.
No. And as such your further elaborations don't make sense.
The classifications board refused classification for the console ports of the game. The reasoning is as follows:
> The computer game is classified RC in accordance with the National Classification Code, Computer Games Table, 1. (a) as computer games that "depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified."
Drug use is common in video games in Australia, although most games would be classified R18+.
The RC was appealed successfully, and the game was classified as R18+.
I have had the happiest moments of my life on MDMA. Everyone should have experienced it at least once. Let me put it another way: No matter how happy you have ever been, on MDMA you can be happier. Somewhere between 3 and 100 times as happy. You gain perspective.
Now, with experience, I would only ever use it with purpose. Dating someone seriously? Have a night on MDMA and you will experience love beyond comprehension.
I have done my fair share of drugs and as much fun as they were, the experience was nowhere near close to the peak moments of my life to date. YMMV
Proposing to my fiancee, attending my brother's wedding, holding my nephew for the first time, winning my first boxing match, winning life-altering over-leveraged bets on the stock market; these are all experiences that not even the greatest of great trips can hold a candle to, and none of them came with comedowns. I've come to realise that drugs are the fast-food of experiences. You get that great sugar salt and fat rush but it's not really healthy and doesn't taste as great food prepared with love sweat and thought (IMO).
PS if you really love drugs, for me the best of the best is your own adrenaline (again YMMV)
"I have done my fair share of drugs and as much fun as they were, the experience was nowhere near close to the peak moments of my life to date."
That's not what they are saying, though. They said that they've had the happiest moments in their life on it. It might not be the best moment of your life, but you'll be freaking happy about it. There is no real comparison between a chemically-induced happiness and the enriching happiness of big life moments, and the chemically induced happy is definitely its own happy. It makes those big life moments even happier in retrospect, more so in the moment with some lasting long-term effect.
I advise to be careful for everyone trying it out for the first time. Do it only with people you trust and feel safe around. Even then the trip is usually awesome, but after that you gain perspective as you said, and that perspective comes sometimes with the realization that the world around you isn't peaceful and awesome.
Regarding your last sentence, if you want to go one step up from that, 2C-B is like MDMA x200 for a "night of fun with someone you love". It's beyond anything I've ever experienced before by a long shot, highly recommend.
Damn that's crazy, I've taken it probably 20/30 times and never had an issue, and taken it with groups of 5 or so folks and never seen that issue, not doubting you at all, just never heard of that reaction. Powder or pill? Are you sure it was good?
I bought it as a powder. We snorted a couple mgs. I tested it with one of the reagents and it checked out. I think I'm sensitive to vasocontriction. I'm aways freezing on psychedelics, this one was particularly bad. Shallow breaths, cold, tight chest. If I wasn't on drugs I would have gone to the hospital. Sex was intense though, and light visuals towards the end with trippy thoughts that just shut off at pretty much 2 hours on the dot.
I am pretty bad with acquiring illicit compounds beyond what the local hardcore gay clubbing dealer sells. Which is usually limited to e, mephedrone, crystal meth and cocaine. The last three being addictive hardcore drugs I won‘t ever try a second time.
Does it make you yearn for that the rest of your life though? Nothing can ever be as impressive as the empathetic openness on a heavy roll with the right people around you
Yes, yes it does. The desire is always there, garnished with the knowledge that every single hit melts your brain and permanently erodes your serotonin receptors a little bit.
> Although initially it proved difficult to find any cognitive sequelae that correlated with these changes,11 recent animal studies have shown subtle, but lasting, deficits in cognitive behaviorsthat do correlate with the levels of damage to 5-HT systems in the hippocampus.
> In this study, we found an MDMA-related decline in memory performance on a visual paired association test in the first follow-up period in heavy MDMA users,
Living the healthiest lifestyle possible would definitely have a great impact, but that has an impact on anyone who doesn't already live it: Food, nutrition, working out, cardio, meditation, sleep, avoiding negative emotions.
I agree and totally have done MDMA while dating someone.
But as good as the high was, the breakup was/is the worst of my life because of these moments we had together that were x100 more intense.
Don't recommend doing this if you think you'll later break up.
… that is only there because you are putting chemicals in your body. ‘Love beyond comprehension’ thanks to a drug doesn’t sound very fun to me, it sounds like something out of Brave New World.
Wrong. This is one of those things where you can't speak about (authoritatively, judgmentally, whatever) unless you have experience. It gives you a fundamentally new experience you have not had unless you have tried it, so you can't judge it as "synthetic" or "real" until you try it. With that bottom line out of the way, I want to help rehabilitate your view:
Maybe one way to view which correctly re-emphasises the "natural"/positive nature of the experience is to view entheogens/empathogens as a "performance enhancement" (or in gamer parlance, a cheat code) that gives you access to states of consciousness that you could indeed achieve sans external chemical assistance (ECA) with sufficient, work, practice, discipline, focus (interested? Energy work: breath, yoga, meditation, energy, diet). Then a question becomes: are you someone who likes to play with cheats on or not? But a more important question: you, who never even knew you could feel this incredible way, combined with the aid of this external chemical assistance which permitted you to discover that, now, having a taste for how expansive/loving/[appropriate-adjective] your life/experience can be, commit yourself to play this game of life without cheat codes and develop your capacity more in order to create, sans ECA, these experiences.
In BNW aren't things "force administered" to create a desirably compliant/utilitarian population? Indeed, nightmarish. But if you take it of your own choice, it's different.
These chemicals are probably powerful tools. Of course, people can choose to abuse those things and harm themselves and others, or just be generally grumpy about everything no matter what anyone says (which itself is a matter of perspective, something with which ECE can aid). So people can also choose to make the best use for themselves of those tools.
It doesn't mean you have to try, or even be open to. But before you talk on something you don't know and attempt to pass premature judgement incorrectly upon that, be open to realizing that there's a "step change"/watershed between what you know right now, and what you know once you had a good experience on them. In a similar way that you can't really know what it's like to have kids until you have them. It opens up your world. And what you do with that, just like kids--whether you fuck it up or not, or use it for good or not--is up to you.
I always offered my parents who won‘t live another 10 years some of my drugs, but they refuse. "We don‘t like loss of control / altered mental states" they say. Meanwhile I just met a young man I am
into who is excited to try e for the first time soon when we will go out.
You can really split people in two here, those who actively avoid gaining experience with new states of mind and those that love collecting them.
it's not like BNW because you can't really take it all the time. Trick to peak benefit is to space it out. Ideally by several weeks, if not months between sessions.
I see quite a number of comments making some very wildly inaccurate statements about the pharmacological safety of MDMA.
There have been a number of studies conducted about the health impact of MDMA. In monkeys, it has been shown to leave behind long-term brain damage, serotonin receptor damage for at least 7 years, etc.
Personally, back at University I had some acquaintances who got quite addicted to them and appeared to suffer the mental side-effects. It was really rough.
They are not safe. What they are:
* A potent drug
* Gives you a pretty sweet high (at a big enough dosage)
* Addictive (the addictive qualities of amphetamines has been known for decades)
Oxycontin, anyone?
Truly, I hope that these drugs are studied and science finds out which of these generally "taboo" drugs have great medicinal utility for certain ailments.
However calling these "super safe" is just like calling Oxycontin "super safe". It's a really bad take IMHO.
How the hell do you even dare to lob MDMA in the same category as Oxycontin? I have seen pretty much every substance abused daily (amphetamines, different types of legal medication, alcohol, marihuana, heroin) by people I knew, but I have never met anybody that took MDMA on a daily basis or had a strong dependency on it.
Medics pretty much agree everywhere that MDMA is less addictive than alcohol which is in turn much less addictive than Oxycontin. I don't even know why you dragged that into the conversation. Oxycontin was never prescribed as much in Europe because every medic there already knew it had a huge addiction hazard.
You also do not have any sources to back up your claims. But feel free to clean up this Wikipedia entry if you feel it's wildly inaccurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA
> Long-term exposure to MDMA in humans has been shown to produce marked neurodegeneration in striatal, hippocampal, prefrontal, and occipital serotonergic axon terminals.[64][67] Neurotoxic damage to serotonergic axon terminals has been shown to persist for more than two years
> Impairments in multiple aspects of cognition, including attention, learning, memory, visual processing, and sleep have been found in regular MDMA users
> Serotonin depletion following MDMA use can cause depression in subsequent days. In some cases, depressive symptoms persist for longer periods.[7] Some studies indicate repeated recreational use of ecstasy is associated with depression and anxiety, even after quitting the drug.
There is more but anybody can just visit the link. LSD seems like a much safer option.
But dragging in misinformation to somehow associate MDMA with the ongoing opioid crisis in the US is completely messed up and pretty much how we ended up in this situation in the first place.
Do you have sources for that comparison of Opioides with MDMA?
I also couldn't find much studies on MDMA itself, as most such studies refer to some sort of pills, which are usually mixed with other drugs (e.g. Speed).
The Wikipedia article has a tonne of links to studies that link amphetamines to addiction, which is also a primary trait of opiates. Opiates also have negative side-effects with abuse, just like amphetamines.
They have many similarities.
> and extended use can also lead to addiction, memory problems, paranoia and difficulty sleeping
Psilocybin, for me, was like taking the red pill. It was the first time something had ever pushed me up out of my deep depression. Like suddenly breaking through to the surface of my emotions. It led to ketamine therapy (nasal spray) which saved my life, and gave me a whole new lease on it.
I still wouldn’t risk obtaining them legally, discretion is paramount for controversial medicine. One tiny data leak and your reputation is tarnished in certain circles, and that doesn’t even get into why the government knowing about it could be risky.
It's an uncomfortable in-between area as laws shift towards common sense but social values among certain cohorts remain defiantly anchored in the past. We've seen it a million times before and we always get past that in-between area, though not without casualties.
Do you have serious depression with persistent suicidal thoughts? If not then this isn't designed for you. If you do then the last thing you'd be worried about is someone at work finding out because the alternative is to kill yourself.
Bluntly, using psychiatric medication is an indicator of mental illness. And some people judge such people very negatively, presuming they are unfit to handle serious responsibility. This perspective is sometimes official; in Canada, commercial airline pilots can't take antidepressants without informing the government, and Transport Canada routinely suspends such pilots. [1] Physicians are subject to similar, if less aggressive, restrictions.
Being honest, if I found out a person has a long, serious history of depression, I would probably think they are less reliable. That is probably prejudiced. But I think that's a common attitude. If it were a position where lives or a lot of property were on the line, maybe I would think twice in hiring?
As a person with mental health issues: people with such opinions are the vast majority, and therefore are also the majority of people managing sizeable teams. They aren't bad people, it's just how the world works.
It's also how people with mental health issues judge others with mental health issues: over how productive they are. For example, you have probably heard a lot about a functional, high-achieving person with ADHD person (because they are better at self-marketing, and because others easily see their value), but probably next to nothing about the low-functioning ADHD person who may never be able to hold down a job and has a patchy career. When a high-functioning "disabled person" is campaigning for greater workplace inclusivity, for instance, they're usually campaigning for other high-functioning people, not the low-functioning ones.
Functional people find low-functioning people less reliable. :( Partially because it is true, partially because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and partially because our society worships functionality (because it's what wins resources, at the end of the day).
If someone could not list a bunch of things that would prejudice them for or against an individual, then they're probably more prejudiced than the average person.
We all have prejudices. For example, I know I am biased against speakers of some regional accents of English. (All speakers of English are biased for or against various accents, if the studies are to be believed.) If someone produces a southern American drawl, I assume things about them. Those assumptions are not fair. But they're also automatic. The only way I know to correct such errors in thinking are to consciously reflect on it like that. How am I potentially prejudiced against or for this person? Are those prejudices even remotely reasonable? If not, am I potentially treating someone unjustly based on stereotypes and assumptions?
And don't worry. I understand myself well enough to know I'd be terrible in a management role.
I believe SSRIs are among the most prescribed medicine in the US. They’re certainly a blunt instrument. I’m all for MDMA or psilocybin research. From my own experience they are certainly very potent and can cause longer term changes in your mental well-being
Perhaps wanting control over the lives and property of others is the real mental illness, as it results in quite unreliable things happening in the world and throughout history.
It could cause me some reputational harm if my buprenorphine injection was to become common knowledge (in theory, in practice my family, friends and boss are well aware of my treatment for opioid use disorder).
I thought the reason ts/sci people weren't allowed to have any drug use in their history was because using illegal drugs could open them to blackmail? If you're taking an above-board medicine that wouldn't be a factor. I can't imagine one would lose their clearance if they were taking prescription amphetamines for ADHD treament, for example.
the most obvious example is people who still think it should be illegal and would look down on you for using it, it was never about the legality for them, the legality was just a side effect of their stance
When they say "for medical usage", they mean it.
This is not just a nice acceptable easing in of liberal recreational drugs policy.
Don't expect to be buying party drugs from the chemist before going out on saturday night. Despite the fact that this is precisely what should be happening - nice, safe, clean party drugs instead of god knows what probably methamphetamine/ice.