[twomoonsbysurf]

I don't recommend it.

It is incredibly intense-- even traumatic. And there is no precise "dosing".

Stay away from all drugs. Drugs do not lead to enlightenment. They do not lead to some hidden knowledge. They throw your neuro-chemicals out of balance-- potentially forever if you're misfortunate.

Hallucinogens can affect you forever, negatievely, and never stop-- and there is no cure if they do, for example: "Hallucinogen-persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a long-lasting and potentially permanent syndrome characterized by a spontaneous recurrence of perceptual/visual disturbances".

It is not worth the risk. You have only one brain-- don't tamper with its health and safety. Again-- there's no hidden knowledge there, no enlightenment. It's not worth it: put your focus on something valuable, productive, and safe.

[survirtual]

Have you ever hit rock bottom? Have you ever not wanted to exist anymore? I have, and it was terminal. Do you know what saved me? DMT.

DMT saves my life. And every time I wanted it to end and I chose a pipe before going through with it, I was saved again. DMT taught me many things, but most of all it taught me how to love myself and how to love life.

Mushrooms reinforced those lessons. It took me from poverty to using my natural gifts (coding, tech) in a way that added value to society & let me acquire prosperity.

If it wasn’t for psychedelics, I’d have been 6 ft under many years ago and all the good I’ve experienced and spread would have never happened.

DMT let me make contact with an eternal and boundless love. Maybe it was imagined, maybe it was real, but in any case if an illusion teaches you how to love and how to flourish, tells you that you have an important contribution to make, and sets you on a positive course — is it really an illusion? If actionable and material manifestation occurs as a result of the internal changes, then the “reality” of an experience is confirmed.

5-MeO-DMT is like a shortcut stargate straight to that eternal love. It has and will continue to save many, many lives.

You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

[kamranjon]

Hey there, just wanted to chime in as someone who has both used psychedelics (have used all of those being discussed here) to facilitate long lasting change in my life and who also strongly agrees with the idea that there is no real enlightenment to be found by using drugs.

There was a good quote from Alan Watts regarding this that I’ve carried with me for years: “When you get the answer, hang up the phone.” - which for me is to say that if you think your work is going to be magically over after using psychedelics, it’s not, that’s just the beginning, take what you’ve learned on move on to something more instead of chasing your tail for years attempting to achieve some elusive plateau of being by phoning it in.

[sk5t]

> “When you get the answer, hang up the phone.”

To put it another way, a trip by helicopter over a mountain's summit isn't the same as climbing the mountain, but it might open one's eyes to the goal.

[pmoriarty]

"When you get the answer, hang up the phone."

I think it was Ram Dass who responded: "I don't hang up on a teacher."

And what if there's more than one answer? Or what if you've forgotten the answer?

Sometimes what you get is not an answer but an experience, or a communion with the sacred or a transcendent reality which is ineffable and can't be brought back to the ordinary world.

[survirtual]

A good reminder in general, but I don’t think it’s universally applicable. DMT no longer “works” for me, and my course & role is known. There is no tail chasing here. But “drugs” are just a tool to fix the sickness imbued by a very broken social structure present here. It won’t give you “enlightenment” or whatever it is you’re after, but it will set you on the path which would otherwise be inaccessible.

That path demands a lot relative to what we think we need to do to thrive. It requires a lot of work to become simple, a lot of resolve, and a lot of comfort with self. And you often lose course, especially when revisiting mass society for any duration — and in those cases, revisiting psychedelics are very beneficial.

Alan Watts wasn’t alone. He had community and an environment that enabled him to say those things and think that way. He was outside the prison of ordinary society and could afford to hang up. His original audience could also afford that. Most of us cannot.

People in ordinary society need reminders external. Anyone still asleep or just partially awake needs reminders, otherwise the system will make you forget and you’ll be consumed again.

Morally speaking, I don’t view psychedelics as “drugs”. I view them as respecting elders and listening to the original masters; a communion with the plants and the Earth. They all originate from the plants and Earth — psilocybin, from mushrooms; LSD from ergot (a fungi); mescaline from the cactus (a prickly desert thriver, with a warm and soft guiding soul); DMT from nearly every plant and animal alive (the truth is hidden inside all of is); 5-meo-dmt from the Sonoran desert toads and poison tree frogs…and many more, many undiscovered. Knowing these masters requires a level of species evolution and a respect for the elders, the true elders. They do not have human faces or forms, they are alien relative to us and what we have become.

Just as I would always listen to my late grandparents when they had stories to share, and my parents when they have the same, or as I listen to a monk share their story and spend time helping when visiting their temples (of any belief), listening to their lessons, I listen to the stories and wisdom of these plants. Not for fun; not for “enlightenment”; not for power; not in fear or shame or dogma or rigidity; but simply because they are speaking. And when an ancient elder speaks, you ought to stop what you’re doing for a moment and listen. They might just help you in ways you never knew you needed.

[braingenious]

> Stay away from all drugs. Drugs do not lead to enlightenment. They do not lead to some hidden knowledge. They throw your neuro-chemicals out of balance-- potentially forever if you're misfortunate.

Counterpoint: I have done quite a lot of DMT and 5-MeO-DMT and they were both fun and interesting substances.

My advice is: Do not stay away from drugs unless: a) that is your personal preference, b) you have a specific medical issue that precludes being able to experiment with something safely or c) you are not curious enough to educate yourself thoroughly about a substance before trying it out.

HPPD is wildly exaggerated by almost exclusively people that have a vested interest in policing other people’s behavior and values. Belief in the dangers of “the ability of any substance to permanently change your brain in a negative and nonspecific way” (a hilarious logically impossible supposition) almost always follow up with “don’t do drugs, instead do what I tell you to do. Read my self help book or convert to my religion. My values are the best values.”

[twomoonsbysurf]

>almost always follow up with "“don’t do drugs, instead do what I tell you to do. Read my self help book or convert to my religion. My values are the best values.”"

Eh, it's a fine line that once crossed, you don't get to come back from.

I'm glad I stopped drugs when I did. If I could go back in time, I would have never had started doing drugs in my teenage years but unfortunately it was part of my family culture.

The problem with your advice is that it comes with the risk of grievous bodily harm. Not just to one's self, in the case of: if you're predisposed to mental health problems (such as schizophrenia, etc.) or physical health problems (such as heart palpitations or other heart problems), but potentially to other people: if you're using drugs and accidentally affect someone else negatively (physically or emotionally).

I think it's naive to encourage people to do drugs, as it speaks from a place of "Drugs have always been fun and good for me. Therefore they'll always be fun and good for you!" Much like the dogmatic philosophy you mentioned-- no offense, but you seem to be representing a similar dogmatic philosophy but at the other-side of the spectrum (of drug encouragement).

Also, investigating a drug does not in any way guarantee it will not traumatize you or negatively effect you (or others) forever.

Drugs have a high risk of being dangerous, hazardous, addicting, etc.-- that's why they're controlled substances.

[pmoriarty]

"The problem with your advice is that it comes with the risk of grievous bodily harm."

I hope you don't ride in cars or cross streets, because they also come with risks of grievous bodily harm.

"Drugs have a high risk of being dangerous, hazardous, addicting, etc.-- that's why they're controlled substances."

Food and sex can be addictive, and plenty of people's health is ruined by them.

Also, plenty of dangerous, hazardous, and addictive drugs like alcohol and cigarettes are not controlled substances.

Psychedelic and cannabis use was associated with minorities, the counterculture, and antiwar protestors. They were seen as a threat to the status quo. Those and some sensationalistic media scares were the real reasons they were banned.

[braingenious]

> you seem to be representing a similar dogmatic philosophy but at the other-side of the spectrum (of drug encouragement).

My advice to do drugs is immediately followed by a qualifier that states that you should not do drugs if you would prefer not to do them. I can’t think of anything further from dogmatism than “do x thing unless you don’t feel like doing it.”

> The problem with your advice is that it comes with the risk of grievous bodily harm. Not just to one's self, in the case of: if you're predisposed to mental health problems (such as schizophrenia, etc.) or physical health problems (such as heart palpitations or other heart problems), but potentially to other people: if you're using drugs and accidentally affect someone else negatively (physically or emotionally).

This is entirely addressed by parts a and b of what I wrote.

Out of curiosity, what activities are guaranteed to not negatively affect anyone else emotionally or physically? If that’s the hard and fast rule that you live by, I’d love to know what your average day is like.

I’m glad that you figured out that you’d personally prefer not to do drugs. It’s great that you had the opportunity to gain that knowledge through direct experience. In a way, you could say that what you learned about yourself and your life through drugs was something that you wouldn’t have learned otherwise… like hidden knowledge or a personal enlightenment. I’m sure that you would agree that this deep and personal “knowledge” that you possess about drugs probably couldn’t have become so apparent and impactful to you by simply reading a comment about the concept of drugs on an article about toad venom on HN.

[photochemsyn]

All psychedelics are at least as safe as alcohol, if consumed responsibly. We accept alcohol even though drinking too much at one sitting can kill you and drunk people routinely smash their cars into other cars, etc., so 'safety' is a relative concept. Caution is clearly the best approach.

However, the claim that 'hallucinogens can affect you forever, negatively and never stop' is unsupported. These drugs share a common receptor as the basis of their action, the 5-HTP receptor, which is involved with sensory perception at some low level in the brain. This can result in 'visions' or intensified color perception or numerous other effects (synthesia, etc.) Some people enjoy the experience, others do not. The most important rule for the neophyte experimentalist to follow is 'less is more'.

Personally I found psychedelics immensely therapeutic and a great aid to quitting alcohol, and also of great benefit to my 3D-visualization skills. I'd also note that consumer culture norms ('more is always better') can cause disasters when mixed with psychedelics.

However as I note in another comment, toads are a horrible source of 5-MeO-DMT due to the fact that toads of this type contain a variety of other toxins.

[pmoriarty]

"toads are a horrible source of 5-MeO-DMT due to the fact that toads of this type contain a variety of other toxins."

Not only that but these toads are at a risk of extinction due to the human demand for their venom.[1]

We also don't know if the toads are harmed by the venom milking process itself. Toads certainly try to get away from humans and don't seem to want to be touched. Squeezing on their glands might be painful for them, though we can't tell because they don't scream or talk, but they do try to get away.

It's ironic that so many people treat these substances as sacred, and yet the animal that has this substance in its body is so often treated without respect and without regard for its existence.

It's doubly sad because synthetic sources of 5-MeO exist, and they don't harm the toad.

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/us/toad-venom-psychedelic...

[cwkoss]

> All psychedelics are at least as safe as alcohol

This is false. LSD and mushrooms are arguably as safe as or safer than alcohol. However...

There are hundreds other psychedelic compounds in existence, and some can acutely cause death, some even at doses close to recreational levels. Phenethylamines can all be deadly, and nboms cause extremely dangerous vasoconstriction. Some significantly lower seizure threshold.

I think the therapeutic potential for psychedelics is very promising, but there are definitely some psychedelics that are much more dangerous than alcohol.

[photochemsyn]

Just practically, 'psychedelics' can be broadly or narrowly defined. Hunger and thirst can induce hallucinations, for example. A wide variety of toxic and pharmacologically active compounds have similar side-effects. Hence, a narrow definition makes more sense, as compounds binding to the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor, which is a much smaller list:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33740877/

[cwkoss]

I think even the narrow definition includes drugs more dangerous than alcohol.

Chemicals like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25I-NBOMe#Toxicity are among the most potent agonists of the 5-HT2A receptor, and are also extremely dangerous due to potency and their vasoconstrictive and cardiovascular effects.

(There are horrifying stories of people being sold "acid" and then their lips turn blue from vasoconstriction and subsequently need hospital intervention - see: https://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_25INBOMe_Health_...)

A significant number of the deaths the nbom family has caused can probably be attributed to the difficulties of clandestine dosing in microgram amounts, but I think they may still be more dangerous than alcohol even when dosed accurately. It's certainly more dangerous for naive users without the proper equipment to measure and handle it.

[burner556]

Drugs are actually tons of fun. I think in the long run all drugs become detrimental (alc, caffeine, etc) but wow you can have experiences you will never forget and they def-o change the way you look at the world.

I would recommend everybody I know to experiment with drugs. I don’t recommend becoming dependent on ANY drugs.

[systemsignal]

Have you seen this study on how psilocybin substantially reduced depression and anxiety in people with life threatening cancer?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5367557/

Would love to know if you know anything else in the world that can do that repeatably

[renewiltord]

Well, I drink coffee, so the game is up.

Despite everyone on the Internet warning me about how everything is dangerous, I have done all these things without even coming close to risking anything.

I've also noticed that people on the Internet think that a child riding their bicycle on the sidewalk is dangerous to other people on the sidewalk. So that leaves me with the natural conclusion: the threshold people pick for unacceptable risk to life and limb is on a wide distribution, so P(I_will_think_x_is_dangerous|someone_told_me) is very low.

And in the end, I've written a lot of code for a lot of people and have led successful organizations, so I know I'm not unproductive and I know I'm still not unproductive. So maybe I'm rolling the dice each time, but you know what? The fact that I've done shrooms tens of times, and alcohol hundreds of times, and LSD some ten times, and I'm able to do all of this and still be okay by society's standards has got to set a lower bound on your posterior probability after reading this comment surely.

There's a lot of nutty mysticism surrounding so many completely normal things. It's like in middle school, when we kids were discussing what condoms make you do. Some theories from the time:

- condoms make you want to kiss someone

- some kid heard about another kid's friend who wore a condom and they got a baby as a result

- another kid heard that condoms are a kind of powder

That's the state of the comments here

[pmoriarty]

It is a risk, but so is riding in a car, which can cause irreparable brain damage or death if one is injured in a car accident. Skiing, skydiving, and scuba diving carry similar risks. Even crossing the street is risky.

As adults we evaluate risks and make a decision as to whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

I don't think we can say a priori whether something is too risky for someone without knowing the person and their circumstances. Some people are really at the end of their rope and desperate to try anything, and have already tried many risky things (like antidepressants or other medication, each of which carries their own risks and possibly severe side effects) and will continue doing risky things without a fraction of the potential benefits of psychedelics.

There have been studies which show that psychedelics help people, even to the point of "curing" some of them after a single dose. The evidence so far shows enormous promise and far more effectiveness than traditional antidepressants for severe-treatment resistant depression.

How can we tell people who are suffering, some of whom are suicidal even, that they shouldn't try something which holds so much promise?

Yes, there are risks, and no guarantees. But steps can be taken to maximize the chances of a positive experience... such as doing it in a safe setting with a trusted, trained therapist or guide, and spending a lot of time afterwards integrating the experience with a therapist.

Some other recommendations for enhancing safety:

- lie in the recovery position[1], with the mouth facing downward so fluid can drain

- abstain from food and drink for at least 4 or 5 hours beforehand

- don't mix substances

- thoroughly vet anyone you entrust your safety to, and stay away from facilitators who mess with your body or mind during the experience

Also see the best practices guide of The Conclave: [2]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_position

[2] - https://theconclave.info/

[Zababa]

> Drugs do not lead to enlightenment. They do not lead to some hidden knowledge.

This reminds me of something near the end of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas":

> We are all wired into a survival trip now. No more of the speed that fueled the 60s. That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary's trip. He crashed around America selling "consciousness expansion" without ever giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that were lying in wait for all the people who took him seriously. All those pathetically eager acid freaks who thought they could buy peace and understanding for three bucks a hit. But their loss and failure is ours too. What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole lifestyle that he helped to create. A generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the acid culture: The desperate assumption that somebody - or at least some force - is tending the light at the end of the tunnel.

My own experience is relatively tame. I'd say the worst part was the difference between my expectations and reality. The "hidden knowledge" you talk about and the "fallacy of the acid culture" are a good illustration of that. But I wouldn't call this life-altering or destroying. It's like going to a country that you really want to go to, only to find out it's not what you expected. I've seen many people that would rationalize this by saying "the drugs showed you what you needed, that you need to manage your expectations", but you can rationalize/anaylze any situation in your life like that. I went to Chernobyl and had a great time, so I should try to go out of my comfort zone more often. I didn't do my best in school and regret it, so I should try to work have to have less/no regrets. Everything has meaning once you search for it.

[pmoriarty]

"A generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the acid culture: The desperate assumption that somebody - or at least some force - is tending the light at the end of the tunnel."

I'd rather take my chances with the acid culture than with the alcohol culture.

At least there's potential for profound positive healing, empathy for others, and deep contact with the natural world and a transcendent reality.

With alcohol (which Thompson himself seriously abused) the most you get is a bit of social lubrication and maybe a short-lived forgetting of your problems (which, unlike psychedelics, alcohol does not help to come to terms with), while the risks of alcohol are just as great.

I'd also argue that there's a risk to remaining psychedelically naive. The disconnection from nature -- seeing it just as a resource to be exploited -- is one of the major causes of runaway climate change. Psychedelics (though no guarantee) might help to change such attitudes for the better, as multiple studies have shown that they can foster connection and caring for nature. When used constructively, they can also help people have empathy for others -- something we desperately need.

I could go on and on about their potential benefits, but instead I'll just end by noting that it's myopic and one-sided to just look at the acid casualties without looking at all those who've been helped (not hurt) by psychedelics.

[Zababa]

> I'd rather take my chances with the acid culture than with the alcohol culture.

That sounds like a false dichotomy, unless you have some data to support that?