[danieldon]

"could even be argued that alcohol is more dangerous than psilocybin"

That anyone even entertains the notion that alcohol isn't significantly more dangerous than psilocybin demonstrates how extremely misguided the public is about the subject.

"but have also wrecked a lot of people ... becoming an acid-head is a terrible idea ... are exhaustingly boring people."

It's also interesting that many people can't help but view this issue through the prism of their own cultural biases, stereotypes and anecdotes.

[pw0ncakes]

That anyone even entertains the notion that alcohol isn't significantly more dangerous than psilocybin demonstrates how extremely miguided the public is about the subject.

I could be wrong, but as I understand it, they're different categories of danger altogether. Alcohol can kill you. Psilocybin can't, but it is at least possible that it can lead to mental illness. Although the probability of psilocybin leading to lifelong psychosis seems to be astronomically low, that's a fate I'd easily mark as 10 times worse than early death... so there's more downside to the psychedelics. At least with psychedelics, the risks are more subjective and much more poorly understood.

Ever have a terrifyingly bad trip? Or a panic attack? If the answer to both is no, and you haven't been to war (I haven't), you have no idea of the depths of negative human experience, nor of post-event fallout. Having suffered from panic attacks and endured bad trips, I'd be terrified to go anywhere near even a 1 in 1 million chance of lifelong mental illness, even though I take that risk of death every day just by being alive.

I don't know what the probability of having a psychotic break on shrooms is. I bet it's low, but it seems to happen. The open question is whether these psychological events were "waiting in the wings" so to speak. It has been argued that the people having these problems were doomed to have them anyway, and that the drugs merely sped them along, but the jury seems to still be out on that one.

With alcohol, we have an extremely dangerous drug but we know what the dangers are, and we're generally pretty good at dosage control (which we have to be, since the ratio between a fatal dose and the average recreational dose is so low). When I buy a beer, I know how much alcohol I'm getting and can control the dosage.

In cultures that use psychedelics for religious purposes, there's no increased risk of mental illness for users of the substances, which leads me to believe that the substances themselves are actually pretty safe, but we're talking about people who have been using the substances responsibly for decades. It's difficult to use them in our context so pristinely-- the supply comes from an illegal scumbag market that provides unreliable goods, dosage is erratic, users are generally uneducated about what they're doing and have psychological hangups (I believe that guilt/fear about using drugs is one of the causes of bad trips).

It's also interesting that many people can't help but view this issue through the prism of their own cultural biases, stereotypes and anecdotes.

Look: I've actually used these drugs, and I know that for many people, they're provide wonderful experiences. I've had a few great experiences on them, even though I don't use them now and probably never will.

The people I'm talking about are the party types who are using these drugs all the time, to the point that drugs are the only things in their lives. That's what I mean by "acidhead", "e-tard", etc. and that's a terrible road to go down. I'm not talking about the person who uses acid a couple times per year or even a couple times per month. I'm talking about the people who use them so intensely and frequently that they start organizing their lives around drugs instead of the other way around. (I highly doubt that you're in this category, seeing as you post on HN.)

[danieldon]

"I don't know what the probability of having a psychotic break on shrooms is. I bet it's low, but it seems to happen"

That's the point. Although the relationship between psilocybin and psychosis is unclear, it's already very well established that alcohol aggravates mental disorders and causes psychosis. On top of that, all available evidence suggests that psilocybin is very physically safe, while all available evidence suggests that alcohol is very physically unsafe.

There is absolutely no rational reason to believe that psilocybin is anywhere near as dangerous as alcohol, and it's a gross disservice to even entertain the myth.

Furthermore, alcohol isn't the only legal substance that is connected with psychosis; a number of prescription drugs and even caffeine are linked to it.

"That's what I mean by "acidhead", "e-tard", etc. and that's a terrible road to go down"

But do these stereotypes really provide any value to this discussion? For just about any thing there is a subculture that indulges in that thing and people who hate that subculture. Should we ban plush animals because people find furries intolerable?

[pw0ncakes]

On top of that, all available evidence suggests that psilocybin is very physically safe, while all available evidence suggests that alcohol is very physically unsafe.

This is interesting. What about the danger of bad trips? For example, I know that if I drink 2 beers, I'll get a buzz and as long as I don't drive, I'm safe. I don't know that with regard to shrooms. I've never had a bad trip on those, but I've had terrifying salvia trips, and I have a problem with panic attacks, so I don't have that assurance and would tend to avoid using them.

Do you believe that psilocybin would be relatively safe if used under proper circumstances? I'd love for that to be true.

[Psyonic]

I'd feel pretty confident saying that a low dosage isn't going to cause a bad trip capable of long-term damage. At high-dosages, sure, there's some danger there, although even then, there is a huge difference between a bad trip and an unenjoyable trip. Sometimes the most important trips long-term are those that were uncomfortable at the time (facing unpleasant truths).

Also, going back to alcohol, with 2 beers, I'll give you that the risk is low. But as that goes up, not only does the potential damage from the alcohol go up, but also your behavior. Increased aggression, etc. I know a guy who broke his hand because he punched a wall while drunk, etc.

Also... do you know any true alcoholics? I mean the real dysfunctional kind? They are worse than any e-head I know. Waiting outside the liquor store at 11 am til it opens, drinking the entire bottle the moment they leave, etc... They are right up there with the worst of drug addicts. I've never even heard of that happening from mushrooms.

[lolcraft]

Alcohol can kill you. Psilocybin can't, but it is at least possible that it can lead to mental illness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

"Alcohol is also a common risk of causing psychotic disorders or episodes. Research has shown that alcohol abuse causes an 8-fold increase in psychotic disorders in men and a 3 fold increased risk of psychotic disorders in women. Alcoholic psychosis is sometimes misdiagnosed as a mental illness such as schizophrenia."

The people I'm talking about are the party types who are using these drugs all the time, to the point that drugs are the only things in their lives.

That doesn't seem a very strong argument. I would argue that everything is subject to psychological addiction. Gambling, World of Warcraft, the Internet, sex... it's physical addiction what should be controlled. I could see the point on banning, say, crack. Or alcohol. Or tobacco. But hallucinogens?

[pw0ncakes]

I'm not advocating banning anything.

[Psyonic]

I believe his point was that the research is more conclusive that alcohol leads to psychosis than hallucinogens.

And people (in general) aren't all that great at controlling alcohol dosages. If it wasn't for the bodies natural reaction (becoming incapacitated), people would die all the time. How many times have you seen people vomiting (in the bathroom, if we're lucky) or passed out due to drinking too much?

If you mean dosage per drink, I'd again they say that falls out naturally based on the amount of alcohol people can handle to taste, rather than proof of rational control.