|
|
|
|
|
by imiric
1832 days ago
|
|
> 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/ |
|
Yeah, but if you agree with the concept of microdosing you will be using them regularly. That is exactly what microdosing is about.