[glotzerhotze]

I heard that argument before. Legitimizing one‘s own drug abuse for „medical reasons“ to make it socially acceptable.

Everyone is on some kind of spectrum and both people I had arguments with about your point of view - are both dead now thanks to overdosing.

I think the medical profession has a reason to exist and I‘d rather see people using professionals to treat their conditions than self-experimenting with possible fatal substances.

[LoganDark]

You don't know the definition of drug abuse if that's what you think this is. I do agree that the medical profession has a reason to exist, and I would very much prefer to receive this treatment from a doctor, but doctors are not currently allowed to prescribe it; even psilocybin (where legal) can only be administered under professional supervision, and is currently approved only for psychedelic therapy, not for ADHD treatment.

There's a lot we don't understand about these substances, but I have overwhelming evidence from experience that what it does for me is something that helps. I'm sorry to hear about the overdoses.

[RamblingCTO]

Yeah, you're wrong. There's a huge difference between psychedelics and "party drugs". Stop fearmongering with undifferentiated "I know someone who knows someone" arguments

[codr7]

It's understandable if you've never tried psychedelics yourself, and probably not hanging out with people who have.

But that safety promise goes for the ones we have plenty of experience with, especially the naturals; once you start putting random substances in your body, all bets are off.

[LoganDark]

What safety promise? There is no promise of safety here. Part of being a responsible user is understanding that safety cannot be guaranteed; one can only attempt to minimize risk. That's the guiding principle behind the concept of harm reduction.

Making sure you're actually taking what you intend to take is indeed very important, because if it's something else, that indeed would be random and you might not only apply the wrong strategy, but take an incorrect dose as well; the correct dose may be "none" if it is a toxic or lethal substance.

But even when you know exactly what you're taking and what are the risks involved, you can't guarantee safety; no one can. This is important to understand. An incorrect understanding can lead to reckless behavior that will get you killed.

[codr7]

You're typically not going to kill yourself with weed or shrooms, or a lot of other well researched psychedelics. It may well get uncomfortable, but not dangerous.

[LoganDark]

Under psilocybin, certain smells can make me suddenly lose consciousness. Due to this, while trying some out at the start of this year, I fainted while exiting the bathroom and woke up with a head injury that required staples in order to close.

Sure, it wasn't the drug itself's fault; all it did was make me sensitive to smell, and then the smell made me faint. I had been fine for something like 8 hours since having taken it. But stuff like this is a risk with psychedelics. If I had fallen slightly differently I probably could've died.

I took the other half of the psilocybin about a week later in order to process the trauma; I figured out the reason for the fainting when I walked past the bathroom again and felt like it was about to happen again. Pretty crazy if you ask me.

I guess the moral of the story is that you really can't expect anything to be perfectly safe even if it won't kill you on its own.

[codr7]

Wild, thanks for sharing. One theory would be that it increased your sensitivity to something in that area. I have a hard time seeing that just a memory would make you faint again.

Look, nothing in this world is guaranteed to be completely safe. We take risks all the time, otherwise we wouldn't get out of bed.

Never heard of anything like it though, so I'm going to assume it's not very common.

[LoganDark]

LSD is also a party drug. You may be referring instead to hard drugs, which are so called because they create physical dependence, psychological addiction, or brain damage (or all of the above).

LSD is technically legally considered a hard drug, because it has the potential to trigger schizophrenia and psychosis in individuals who are in any way predisposed to such; it also is legally classified as a hallucinogen, and all of which are classified as hard drugs, legally speaking.

However, non-legally speaking, I don't consider it a hard drug because it doesn't cause dependence, addiction, or brain damage that is detectable; despite the relative lack of professional research into the substance, there is at least decent evidence that it is not literally neurotoxic. With that said, the potential psychological effects are not to be underestimated, and the experience of a bad trip can cause significant damage purely through the emotional trauma of it.

Practically speaking, there's little difference between being prescribed the substance by a doctor and administering the substance myself, other than that the responsibility of managing my regimen would fall to the doctor rather than myself; however, I'd technically prefer to get this stuff from the pharmacy because then I'd know it's not adulterated, but I can just do reagent tests at home for now.

I would be happy to move to a prescribed treatment if ever this treatment is able to be offered by prescription; that aside, however, my own due diligence is sufficient for my needs and is not likely to result in a fatal overdose. I can't be entirely confident that it's impossible of course, but I can have a high degree of confidence that I'm not putting myself in significant danger right now.

The slippery slope argument doesn't entirely apply here, as I've actually tried other hard drugs (benzos, opioids, dissociatives, etc.) and could never really get into them (with the exception of benzos which I had to stop filling). I understand how they become addictive for others, but I don't really think I'm personally interested in them. What's more addictive for me isn't a body high but the ability to fully utilize my mind, which is what LSD does for me. It makes me feel as if I'm not limited like I am normally, which is incredibly refreshing.

[RamblingCTO]

The big differentiator for me is possible harm and addiction. Psychedelics don't typically bring both (I am under the impression, that we actually don't really know how schizophrenia and psychosis relates or is triggered by psychedelics, that was my impression of recent research). Using crack, heroin etc. and "designer drugs" etc. is a whole other thing. Safety of consumption is just on another level for both classes. Even with "designer" psychedelics that are just added molecules. Tbh I don't know about any totally and weird synthetic psychedelics, I'm assuming shrooms, LSD/AL-LAD (which are both of course synthetic as well), mescaline, ibogaine, and DMT essentially. I hope everyone reading get's the distinction I'm trying to make.

[LoganDark]

Yes, I understand. Serotonergic psychedelics are typically not big sources of addiction, and they typically only cause great harm if taken incorrectly or by someone with a genetic predisposition towards schizophrenia or psychosis; though even then, the harm is only really psychological (but it can be permanent).

Please do note, however, that there are psychedelics which are not serotonergic psychedelics, such as psychedelic amphetamines. These are not typically nearly as safe, just as amphetamines in general typically are not particularly safe when used incorrectly.