zlacker

>>cainxi+(OP)
Not a big fan of the ongoing productisation of transcendental, possibly brain-scrambling experiences. Keeping them somewhat less accessible tends to filter out people who don't do their homework to understand the substance and who consider it just another novel experience to try on a whim, which increases the risk of negative outcomes.

>>demite+q7
> do their homework to understand the substance

Is that actually the common thing to do amongst recreational psychadelics users (i.e. is there research backing this up)?

And how do these folks "understand the substance(s)"? We (humanity) know very little about how the brain works comparatively as far as I'm aware, and psychadelics research is further relatively lacking due to regulatory and funding constraints. Most resources I hear of just seem to be compilations of anecdata, frequently muddled with subjective remarks.

>>perchi+C8
I can only speak for my own circle that I know about where test kits are the norm. Anecdata isn't ideal but it does seem to be valuable as long as the reader considers both positive and negative reports equally and understands the risks rather than just yoloing. I still consider Erowid a great harm reduction resource, TripSit wiki is also fantastic, and I very much support the approach taken by the Subjective Effect Index website.

>>demite+V9
I see, fair enough. I'd be just hesitant to say "xy keeps yz from doing zx" without data, cause it sounds like a claim (or even a fact) rather than an opinion/anecdote, and it's pretty hard to pick up on this difference.

We were able to clarify it and we're both being decent sports about the topic, but you can imagine how well this might go over in less careful and open minded situations. Or even desperate ones.