zlacker

I feel like someone is trying really hard to push public perception of psychedelics towards "acceptable". I don't know who it benefits, but this is a really weird Overton window.

I wouldn't say a word if it weren't nth article about psychedelics that appears on HN frontpage. I was quiet the last n-1 times.

If you google psilocybin right now, you can see articles that state how it "slows ageing" and "cures depression". There probably is some truth to it, but only in very specific sense and specific circumstances. Most people will NOT benefit from taking the drug (as with any drug).

So it hurts my soul when I see words like "legalize" being thrown in this context. We know very very little about effect of such drugs. And the goal should not be to legalize, but rather to expand our knowledge on how it works, and create safe medicine that actually helps people.

Rant is over now. Thank you.

>>demaga+(OP)
> So it hurts my soul when I see words like "legalize" being thrown in this context. We know very very little about effect of such drugs.

That seems like exactly when we should legalize it. The default is legal, and without definite knowledge of serious harm, that should be the status.

The burden of proof should be on the people who want it to be legal, and by your comment, their case seems pretty weak.

>>demaga+(OP)
It’s a lot easier to study if it’s legal. It’s also pretty hard to come up with a convincing placebo. The experience is also highly colored by “set and setting”, and the clinical environment or office space is probably not ideal for this knowledge expansion..

An article just came out showing that psilocybin extends life in aged mice, so that’s why you’re seeing it a lot. Yet we have no idea what causes this lifespan increase. Is it a result of “hallucination” experience itself , a purely chemical effect, or something in between? (aka will a ‘bad trip’ give the same effect on lifespan?)

> Most people will NOT benefit from taking the drug (as with any drug)

Now you’re just making things up.

>>demaga+(OP)
That's something I'm really worried about, especially when SV is pushing it. And it is difficult to prove that research is unbiased.

One of the commenters of your post says "If we legalize it we can better research it". Allow me to be rude -- this is BS. If we follow this logic we should legalize pretty much everything!

I think it is polite to be rude to such dangerous thoughts. Downvote me as you see fit.

>>hnthro+Ab
But following your logic everything would be illegal! There's a whole lot we don't know about how aspirin works, for instance.

Governments should not be in the business of banning things unless there's a clear and present danger. Citizens should have the autonomy to do risky things if they want to.

>>hnthro+Ab
I think a blanket ban under schedule 1 stating that it has no acceptable use is dangerous. It's a clearly false designation and doesn't have evidence to back it up. This isn't a simple matter of a dangerous substance. This is a hard-core human rights violation.

>>allear+Is
Aspirin mechanisms is known since the late 1970s, it's a COX inhibitor.

Acetaminophen is the one that still mysterious, there are credible theories but they don't explain everything the substance does. The latest one I know of is that one : https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2413811122

>>kloop+U1
Sure, just let people use any weapon, we don't know for sure, if any particular bullet is mortal, maybe they don't cause any harm that time.