[hristov]

Anything is better than microdosing. In general not microdosing or taking any drugs at all is better than microdosing.

Microdosing is a lie perpetrated by drug dealers to sell drugs to sectors of the population that would be otherwise too cautious to take them. The entire concept is based on a logical fallacy. The fallacy is that if you do not get the positive effect (i.e., getting high), you won't get the negative effect (i.e., addiction, tolerance, and the slew of other health damaging effects for each particular drug).

But there is no data to support this and it is unlikely to be true. In fact from what is known about the nervous system, taking small dozes of an addictive drug often and at regular intervals is a great way to increase tolerance. This will cause any positive effects of the drug to quickly diminish, which will cause the user to take larger doses, which will cause more tolerance and larger doses until the health effects associated with the drug start showing up.

So yes do take those walks in the park. One can actually be addicted to exercise too, but that is an addiction that almost always has nothing but positive side effects. It is in very rare cases that people exercise so much that it causes negative effects.

[imiric]

> The fallacy is that if you do not get the positive effect (i.e., getting high), you won't get the negative effect (i.e., addiction, tolerance, and the slew of other health damaging effects for each particular drug).

Addiction is hardly a problem for psychedelics, as most users don't use them regularly. In fact, they can be used as treatment for other addictive substances[1].

High doses and long term usage does carry some risk of health issues, mostly psychological, but these are much less severe than effects from similar uses of alcohol or tobacco. Besides, this risk is pretty much nonexistent in the context of microdosing.

Psychedelics have been used in cultures around the world for millennia, yet have been severely understudied in modern medicine. The least we can do is to stop categorizing them alongside much more harmful drugs like heroin and meth, and to fund further research that can determine and mitigate any harmful effects, so that we can establish a legal framework for people to consume them safely.

[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25563446/

[hristov]

"Addiction is hardly a problem for psychedelics, as most users don't use them regularly."

Yeah, but if you agree with the concept of microdosing you will be using them regularly. That is exactly what microdosing is about.

[imiric]

As others have mentioned, psychedelics are not physically addictive like nicotine or heroin. They are habit forming like anything else and should be used in moderation, but microdosing if done correctly shouldn't cause any harm.

That is just my layman understanding, and more research is surely needed.

According to this study[1]:

> One common schedule is to microdose every three days. The idea behind this regimen is that there may be a residual effect from each microdose that lasts one to two days afterwards. Most popular press stories on microdosing have mentioned this three day cycle.

So every three days with these small doses seems hardly more harmful than taking a multivitamin, yet the effects are so anecdotally positive.

Another relevant quote:

> There has been no specific research into the safety of microdosing, however research with higher doses of psychedelics suggests that these substances are relatively safe. Individuals do sometimes have disturbing experiences on psychedelics, including negative emotions, perceptual disturbances, and even psychotic symptoms, and these effects can have a persisting negative impact for some people. In general, however, psychedelics are not addictive, and large scale population studies have not found any association between use of psychedelics and negative mental health outcomes.

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6364961/

[Falling3]

The drugs used for microdosing are not considered to form physical dependence. Nor have I ever heard of anyone become addicted to psychedelics. Is there a reason your response hinges on addiction?

[snypher]

I'm not sure how you can believe what is written here. Do you honestly think people adverse to taking LSD are being convinced because 'its just a little bit'? LSD isn't known to be addictive at all, are there any LSD addicts who started out small but are now taking whole sheets a day?

This post seems like the example of inventing something to get angry at?

[thecrash]

LSD doesn't work the way you're describing, at all. I can think of other substances that do, but your treatment of "drugs" as a monolith suggests you don't really understand the particular topic at hand.

[Clubber]

>In general not microdosing or taking any drugs at all is better than microdosing.

I would agree with this part of your post, but the rest is just stuff you seem to have made up or read from someone who made it up, at least in regards to psychedelics. Sounds like you are describing an opioid or nicotine or something. Not all illegal drugs have the same properties. This reads like old reefer madness propaganda.

[93po]

This is misinformed about the reality of what people typically do when microdosing. Virtually every resource I've ever read on the topic specifically suggests taking off days to ensure you do not build a tolerance. Often regimes recommend only microdosing 2 or 3 times a week. At such low doses and with so many off days, tolerance really does not increase much or any.

Most people I know who microdose grow their own. Blaming drug dealers is ridiculous.

Go ask about taking bigger doses due to tolerance on any discussion board about microdosing. 99% of the time they will tell you to take time off to reduce tolerance.

Psilocybin is not addictive in any physical way.