|
|
|
|
|
by dymk
368 days ago
|
|
Activating latent mental illness is a risk of psychedelics, and yet they are still safer in that regard than alcohol and cannabis. There is a lower rate of psychosis being triggered with LSD and psilocybin. This is an education problem: we are (at least sort of) taught in school the risks of drinking too much, and in younger generations, smoking too much weed, but we are taught nothing about when it's appropriate to take psychedelics. Some recent studies suggest that there is no increase in risk of psychosis from psychedelic use, and at worst, it causes symptoms which would have surfaced anyways to surface sooner. This isn't a reason to take psychedelics of course, it's better that one goes as long as they can without experiencing some sort of schizo-affective disorder. My point is that people are misunderstanding the risks when they look at psychedelics and go "No way I'm taking that, I don't want to make myself schizophrenic", and then don't bat an eye when they drink a glass (or two) of wine or smoke a joint. |
|
Is this adjusted by amount of use? As in, is it possible that it's more likely to trigger latent mental illness with alcohol and cannabis not because they trigger it more effectively, but because they are significantly more widely available, significantly more widely used, and people who consume them consume them in significantly greater amounts?
If you get drunk once, I get high once, and our friend trips on psilocybin once, what is the comparative risk of activating latent mental illness for these events alone?