As someone who has received a tremendous amount of healing and comfort from psychedelics (in particular psilocybin mushrooms), I sincerely hope that legal psychedelic treatment becomes available before it’s too late for the depressed, anxious, and law abiding loved ones in my life. My Dad has a lot of health issues and struggles with depression and anxiety that becomes quite crippling at times. It has caused a great deal of pain for my family and I over the years. I’ve always thought that he would be an excellent candidate for psychedelic treatments but the legality and negative stigma attached ensures he will never become one.
It’s legal in Canada in a limited fashion to licensed suppliers and therapists.
I’ve had similar experiences and I’m excited about the possibilities.
The stigma might take a while to go away for some people who have been so conditioned that “drugs” are for “burnouts” and “frying brains”, but there is real work being done in the space by compassionate and very smart people.
One of two things will happen, depending on whether a drug is inherently harmful or not:
1) if a drug is inherently harmful, its (ab)users will not be able to reach any influential position in society, and the stigma will stay
2) if a drug is not inherently harmful, a certain percentage of its users will reach influential positions and thus remove the stigma by being the proof of its harmlessness
For some drugs, like meth and heroin, 2) will most likely never happen. Those drugs are very hard to control and have a tendency to take over users' lives, rendering everything else in their lives irrelevant.
For other drugs, like marijuana, we are already seeing 2) happening in many countries around the world, including USA and European Union.
Meh meth is prescribed for some adhd cases today and those people are totally functional and fine. Same with their other cousins. Same with painkillers.
Its just they have abuse potential, especially opioid’s, and that is why you have to be careful about it.
Its the entire schedule 1 bullshit that prevents usage of some, and those are political.
Methamphetamine is perfectly safe when used correctly. The problem, obviously, is trust and self-control. Because it's so potent and crosses the blood-brain barrier easier, IIRC it has less intense physical side effects compared to the equivalent (in terms of mental effects) D-amphetamine dose.
How exactly do you go about asking your doctor to try meth?
Even asking for D-amphetamine (superior to Adderall imo, because Adderall contains L-amphetamine which has unpleasant physical effects) is already a tall order. I've read of doctors getting "flagged" for prescribing it.
You don't go in asking for a specific med. You go in for ADHD symptoms and work with your doctor from there trying different medications and dosages to find one that fits you.
"Hart is known for his research on drug abuse and drug addiction, for his advocacy for the decriminalization of recreational drugs, for his controversial view that drug use is not necessarily unhealthy, and for his acknowledged use of heroin."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Hart
It is far more powerful, and cheaper, and prevents sleep - that is the most dangerous. The tendency to re-dose is high enough to be difficult for low-willpower people to not succumb to.
Heroin, opiates, and opoids, can also be used with a relatively decent risk-profile. The potential for addiction is higher, once tolerance is established.
Xanax makes meth and heroin look like kid's toys.
Don't take Xanax except for when you genuinely feel like you may hurt yourself.
This argument doesn’t seem sound. Stigma for drugs increases and decreases over time. That wouldn’t happen if it was a question of the drug being inherently harmful or not. You seemed to have missed a third case of opponents of a drug becoming more powerful than its users and sympathizers. See US prohibition of alcohol and the global criminalization of many drugs in ~1971.
Given Nazí occultism, I think he was not the only one, and that they didn't have it entirely under control too. I think the occultists got themselves stimulant psychosis.
> In the past, I might have said to her, “Dying is natural; it’s part of the human experience,” but without this experience, it would not have landed well. She had to feel this in her whole person, not just as an intellectual or philosophical exercise.
This seems to be a big part of the magic of psychedelics. So many mental issues are cognitive. It’s not always happening at the chemical level. Why would it be in a person who has a healthy brain, but their depression came on with their terminal cancer diagnosis?
The problem is cognition is really hard to change. Especially in adults and especially when things are going badly. The overall effectiveness of talk therapy is not great.
Psychedelics break down our normal barriers so we can truly know the things other people have been telling us and we’ve been telling ourselves. (Or they put us in contact with spirits that gift wisdom. Six of one, half a dozen of another). I talked with someone with OCD who finished a trip thinking “just because my hand touches my phone doesn’t mean it’s dirty”. A simple statement, but he had contact OCD and this had been a huge problem. Something about the message “coming from inside the house” made it work.
One thing I almost never see mentioned in these articles about terminal patients with psychedelics is the concept of the afterlife. Mushrooms are so Earthy, it’s like they tell you that heaven is returning to the soil. Other psychs (DMT, ayahuasca) can give you a picture of where your spirit goes after it splits from your body.
Aside from whether these spiritual beliefs are right they’re certainly less depressing than what the average American is walking around with. There’s “sleep and never wake up”. There’s “heaven, maybe, I think. But lots of people going to hell I guess”, and then, probably the most common case: “who the fuck knows?”. A bit anxiety inducing, really.
>So many mental issues are cognitive. It’s not always happening at the chemical level.
As a biochemist with a passion for neuroscience, I entirely 100% do not agree
The statement doesn't even make sense to me. All cognition is based on the dynamics happening at the biochemical level. All of it is chemical
All of our thoughts and behaviors are the product of chemical reactions and interactions which determine the behavior of individual neurons and their networks. You literally cannot separate those things.
Humans have longed relied on metaphor and analogy to provide context. Chemistry is a contextualized generalization of certain physical phenomena.
Neurons are just temporal spatial events of various mathematical parameters; gradients and ranges of heat, light, etc.
Everything is some form of “how matter happened to coalesce relative to light during $arbitrary_date_time_range”
Or it’s all the specialized language of chemistry and biology.
Six to one, half dozen to another. Normalizing the descriptions isn’t proof of correctness, it’s a specific normalized set of glyphs to simplify communication.
My issue simply stems from how people try to disconnect our conscious experiences from the physical phenomena that underlies it.
Perhaps its my own perception on how I read into statements that make these assertions, but humans have quite a long history of invoking magic "souls" and such to explain thought processes and behaviors. My insistence on referencing the underlying phenomena is an attempt to counter this.
there’s absolutely no reason, for example, as to why unitive consciousness as described in some Hindu philosophies would be in contradiction with our experience of cognition originating entirely within a chemical framework of understanding reality.
Yes it all happens as chemistry. I mean the cause of the problem isn’t always what we would normally call “chemical”. That’s what I meant by “happening at the chemical level”.
I’m just drawing a distinction between something like depression caused by a B12 deficiency and depression caused by the loss of your spouse. Thinking can’t fix B12, but sometimes it helps with loss.
If I try to word it better, would you agree that sometimes mental health issues are caused by biological problems and sometimes by events in our lives and how we think about them?
I'm not sure I could agree with that. What I could agree with is a statement that live events can alter our epigenetic regulation mechanisms which impacts our neuronal chemistry which can alter our thought processes and behaviors.
At the end of the day its still chemistry, and at the end of the day chemistry is still physics, and as far as I've learn physics is deterministic. We can't separate our conscious experience from these underlying mechanisms because our entire existence is based on their rules. The brain is not a construct on which the software of the mind runs, it is the mind.
I’m not claiming that consciousness is separate from chemistry or the mind is separate from the brain.
You could call every problem you run across a physics problem, since our world operates under the laws of physics. That’s just not a particularly useful way to go about things.
If I got fired from my job for a reason I thought was unjust, I’d be angry. And if someone saw me being angry and asked a third person why I’m angry they might say “he got fired for a bullshit reason”. This is all totally normal stuff. They wouldn’t say “his sympathetic nervous system is elevated”. That really doesn’t help the other person understand what’s going on.
Now if I have a tumor that’s smashing my amygdala, then expressing the problem in terms of chemistry/biology is helpful.
I brought this split up at all because it can be useful in figuring out how to treat illness. I think we get it wrong often. There are people in talk therapy who should get on meds to lower their heart rate, and there are people on depression meds who need to switch jobs. (And all of this vice versa).
You seem to be latched onto a specific claim I don’t even think I’m making. Could you engage with the heart of what I’m saying (the usefulness of cognitive changes in treating mental illness and how psychedelics help) and iron man my argument?
I went back and reread your original comment, and I may be a bit confused.
You state that issues are cognitive but then go on to discuss how psychedelics break down barriers. Psychedelics are drugs, one of the best ways of showing that out cognitive processes are determined by our neuronal chemistry.
Considering a traditional psychedelic like 4-HO-DMT or LSD, these compounds have activity at a few different serotonin receptors (and some other side interactions). This pharmacological activity (interaction of an external compound with our internal biomolecules) is how psychedelics alter our cognitive processes.
From my perspective, this shows how our cognitive processes are biochemical and using a drug can change it easily whereas other means are more difficult such as external sensory inputs (therapy, talking to people, reading, aromatherapy, massage?)
I entirely agree with the usefulness of psychedelics, they are massively powerful tools. They're great at helping catalyze significantly alterations in our thought processes, but these changes that they help induces are chemical and structural (structural such as changes in synaptic connectivity)
Structural changes between neurons are directed by chemical signaling as well.
If the changes that fix the problem are biochemical, the problem was biochemical. We alter the biochemistry and they induce changes in the emergent properties of the overall system: behavior and thought processes
Our thought processes and behaviors are the product of our brains (and some signaling from other organs, mostly the brain though) and even minor changes in certain areas or with certain regulatory mechanisms can have profound impacts on mental health.
> They're great at helping catalyze significantly alterations in our thought processes, but these changes that they help induces are chemical and structural (structural such as changes in synaptic connectivity).
Psychedelics don’t operate purely this way (it is part of it). They also, through chemistry, create an opportunity for change in cognition. It’s common for people taking psychedelics in a therapeutic context to leave with lasting insights (like in the article). I don’t know this to be true of any other drugs. SSRIs don’t have the “and then I realized” moment.
Yes, I agree. There are also some important details.
1. That state is short. Minutes or hours.
2. That state is different from the long changes.
3. The long term effects can be enhanced by the activities you do during the temporary state, including thinking.
4. Long term effects can be enhanced and maintained by non-drug activities.
This whole setup seems to be especially good at curing illnesses that are caused by something “at the cognitive level”. It won’t do much for anxiety caused by a hyperactive gland. It will for anxiety caused by a fear of death.
Cognition operates on the basis of neuronal dynamics and neuronal dynamics operate on the basis of biochemical interactions
All changes in neuronal dynamics are due to changes in biochemical regulation
Fear of death could be caused by a multitude of reasons, it's not as simplistic as you make it sound. People are innately afraid of death because there are pathways and regulations that occur naturally in our brain development driven by genetic biochemical regulation.
In case it helps, I think the original post was not meaning to say that the mind is not chemically based in the brain. I did not see it as a contradiction in their position.
I think their use of "chemical" was part of an assumed dichotomy between chronic disorders referred to in pop-culture as "chemical imbalances" versus other (learned or cognitive behavioral) disorders which could presumably be unlearned. The difference is mirrored in the assumed intervention: whether a continuous maintenance dose of some drug is needed to manage the chronic condition versus a transient dose or other therapy which allows the brain to assume a healthier posture and maintain itself thereafter.
> What I could agree with is a statement that live events can alter our epigenetic regulation mechanisms
For sure they can, and we also get to choose our reaction to said events.
This debate is ancient. Do we have free will, or are we predestined to fate? Knowledge of chemistry and physics doesn't give an answer to that question.
Even though we know our computers are "all electrical" in nature, don't we admit that there are software/state problems which can exhibit themselves even if every part of the computer is functioning correctly as an individual electrical component? You cannot find the broken part to fix which will resolve the problem that emerges from an unfortunate set of values stored in the circuits.
I think that is the metaphorical mapping intended by the earlier poster, that a problem can be cognitive rather than chemical.
I think the distinction in this case is that software is not an emergent property that directly arose from the mechanisms of circuits.
Neurons are different than circuits, as their chemistry and physiology does change with various inputs. That's actually how a decent portion of the computation happens.
My disagreement is with the fundamental assumption that the brain is just hardware on which the software of the mind runs. This is not accurate at all, the chemistry and physiology of the brain is everything
You and I might agree on the nature of the mind, in a metaphysical sense. But, the nature of mind is mostly immaterial (ha!) for this topic. The original poster was arguing that a new depressive state as a result of a traumatic diagnosis is evidence that it is a learned or acquired state, rather than something congenital and fixed in physiology. They further argue that this means the sufferer might be guided to unlearn or re-learn to a more desirable state. It may be an optimistic perspective, but I don't think physical reductionism invalidates it.
The computer metaphor is of course shallow or simplistic. It's not meant as an all-explaining allegory. The relevant part, which you even allude to yourself, is that state changes in the brain can be effected through "inputs". The only thing we need to consider is whether further sensory inputs and thought processes can continue to affect the state. Unless you are arguing that the brain reaches some terminal and irreversible state, I don't see that there is any real conflict here.
As an aside, as a computer scientist, I will tell you that software is exactly an emergent property of the circuits. Put another way, software is an abstraction we place on it, as observers. It is not really there as the machine operates. The physics and structure of the machine are likewise everything, with physically real states changing as a result of microscopic mechanisms integrating local state and some signals carried in from topologically neighboring mechanisms.
I think we have a different perspective on emergence, although what you say brings up something I enjoy thinking about.
Software is made by humans on top of the circuits we designed. My perspective on emergent properties is to view it as a spontaneous process arising without intervention.
I think its possible to view silicon computation and software as an emergent property if we consider humans to be part of the natural system out of which software emerges.
Thinking about how we fit into natural systems and considering our role in the development of systems of material, energy, and information exchange. What we develop and build could be considered an emergent property of the universe when a planet has the right constituents, temperature, etc.
I don't consider causal intention to be part of the definition of emergence. Whether through spontaneous evolution or engineering, I think any complex system likely has emergent properties or phenomena. To me, emergence is broad and includes everything from the cascading order of an avalanche to flocking behavior of birds or the standing waves in the morning rush hour; the chill under a clear night sky to cooling effects of perspiration or the heat pump in my refrigerator.
My take on emergence is that it is deeply mired in observation. A complex system does complex behavior. An observer recognizes patterns of behavior and forms an abstraction of identity to distinguish a certain pattern as a characteristic of the system. In some observer-less sense, the complex behaviors are certainly there. But, the semantic boundaries of what is a behavior, what identifies it as a persistent thing that can have emerged or not depending on the current state of the system... those are illusory concepts declared by the observer.
What I took away from GP was that this medicine helps a person learn and integrate truths that their current neuropathways may be blocking or inhibiting at a subconscious level. It's a neuroplasticity aid of sorts and less of something to be taken as a long term maintenance medication. The change in perspective in a therapeutic setting can be a catalyst to permanent changes in thought patterns.
Have you read up on cognitive behavioral therapy?
A short summary would be that a lot of it is caused by entrenched thought patterns and toxic routines. So a question of what input you process how. Its often not caused by chemical imbalances but what falsehoods you belief and what conclusions you draw from it.
"Chemical imbalances" is a terrible way of describing what causes some mental health issues. Its an issue with regulation and sometimes it can be changed with something like CBT.
Its rather surprising to me that you're asking this in a thread about the strongest evidence we have for cognition being biochemical.
The evidence is that action of psychoactive drugs, especially psychedelics and anaesthetics. We have compounds that we have studied that actions of and they act on neurons and their networks to alter or eliminate cognition.
I understand there is data that supports this theory; I wasn’t aware that it is definitive nor how easily it could be reproduced.
Before it was edited, your original statement framed certainty about cognition originating in chemistry as a personal belief. Which isn’t a scientific statement.
I don't believe I edited the comment that you're replying to.
Edit: as a side note, general anesthesia is used hundreds or thousands of times daily and it always eliminates or reduces cognition. That's literally the whole purpose of using it
It’s a travesty magic mushrooms are classed schedule 1. It’s difficult to abuse them, since tolerance builds rapidly. There is evidence of medical use for treatments and they can be taken safely under medical supervision.
It’s infuriating that something helpful to so many suffering people was made, and continues to be, illegal. Imagine meditation is made illegal, on the off chance someone may have a psychiatric breakdown when doing some introspection.
It changes your perspective on the government and its actual role in society (dismissed as counter-cultural thoughts), which may be another reason they are banned.
You realize you’re in a fairly constrained and random system where might (money, status, power) makes right. Sure, fine, it may be true, but let’s not pretend there’s some deep moral justification for the forces in power to be there. They got in first.
Psilocybin is the greatest thing that ever happened to me. If you are at the lowest of lows and don't know where to turn, I highly recommend it. You can grow them yourself at home. The experience of turning spores into fruits is rewarding in and of itself, let alone the powerful medicine you will have a virtually limitless supply of.
Please do not use psychedelics of any sort if you are suffering from depression without the oversight of a medical professional such as a psychiatrist or psychologist
A negative mindset can be heavily amplified through the use of serotonergic 5ht2a agonists, this can lead to disastrous consequences
I disagree with the notion that all things must be "left to professionals" - I have been let down by others more times than I can count. There are ton of abusive and incompetent therapists/psychs out there.
Its not about being left to professionals. This advice is to prevent suicide attempts by individuals who are feeling extremely negative with no hope. Psychedelics amplify your current state of mind. This means negative thought patterns are amplified, so an individual who may not have been suicidal previously may become so especially if they are alone.
Personally I think psychedelics should be freely available to any human that wants them, however I'm also aware of the dangers that these compounds can present and as a society we need to be aware and prepared to face these things. That includes the awareness that one should be careful about their mindset when they decide to use such a powerful tool.
I also agree that there are incompetent professionals, but this isn't about competency. Its about preventing suicide.
I've worked with psychiatrists who were so bad that they made me suicidal.
medical professionals aren't interested in helping people. They are slaves to liability and insurance and place profits above the well being of their patients.
Those kind of psychiatrists probably wouldn't be willing to sit for someone going through psychedelic therapy, and them being licensed is an issue entirely orthogonal to how psychedelics amplify emotions
Just because some medical professionals suck, that doesn't make it safe to use psychedelics when depressed without someone who knows what they're doing with you. "Knows what they're doing" includes knowing how to handle suicidal individuals.
While I completely agree with the point about exploring psychedelic medicine with support, I need to counter by naming that a lot of medical professionals may not be well informed and many are categorically mis-informed.
Please find a guide or therapist who has been formally trained in working with psychedelics, and who works closely with medical doctor if you have any medical concerns or questions. Or work directly with an MD if and only if that MD has had formal training with psychedelics.
The conventional career tracks in western mental health (MFT, Psy.D, licensed psychiatrist or psychologist) do not give someone authority about psychedelic therapy. These backgrounds can be a part of a facilitators work, but they also need formal training in psychedelic therapy.
These people exist and our numbers are growing steadily.
DO NOT use psychedelics without medical oversight if you're at rock bottom. You ideally need to be strong enough to take some unexpected punches, and be in charge of an open, welcoming mindset.
I'm bullish on the potential of psychedelics. I'm interested in finding work in this area to support it.
That's not even close to being directly comparable
Since when does programming carry the risk of suicide or death in some other fashion? I would argue its exceedingly rare, as opposed to suicidal tendencies being amplified by depressed individuals using psychedelics. You're comparing apples to shoes
As per game theory, when you're already losing, that's the best time to take risks. If you lose more, it hardly matters as you were already losing anyway, but if you win you have a chance to comeback.
I don't think you understand either the perspective of depression or how these compounds work
This is my opinion as a formal student of neuropsychopharmacology
Its fine to use psychedelics if you have a responsible and prepared trip sitter, not alone which is what this entire thread is about. That's literally the most dangerous thing you can do and goes against all tenets of harm reduction
Depression isn't "losing" and what you say almost sounds like you're okay with some suicides. That's a bit disgusting
They do. But the only way to get legislators to budge is by appealing to their owners directly. Psychedelics will never be legalized unless it benefits big pharma.
There is momentum growing in Washington State (US). A therapeutic use bill SB 5660 didn't leave committee but led to some funding for additional studies. [1]
Separately, ADAPT-WA filed a ballot initiative and will be gathering signatures to get it onto the ballot. [2]
If someone was inclined to do mycology research there is a plethora of information here: https://www.shroomery.org/
Psilocybin for mental health treatment has been legalized in Oregon though a voter initiative. The new law requires a lot of administrative setup and therapy is not yet available however.
Saying that psychedelics may help some depressed patients will instantly prompt the defense "but we already have tons of antidepressants to give them, with a diverse range of mechanisms of action; psychedelics cause schizophrenia bla bla".
By pushing the focus towards cancer, which is a more sensitive topic, people is more prone to make some concessions. That applies to legislators too.
I know it's uncool to take the contrary view on this, but I've had enough bad trips from ludicrous fleeting thoughts...
Actually dying seems like the worst possible "set and setting" if it goes bad
I don't think we really have the tools to know how it will affect a person, and it's a bit risky imho.
(Fwiw, although I don't imbibe anymore and it's been somewhere around a couple decades, I do think it's a personal choice, and should definitely be available to someone on their deathbed. I am just saying I'd personally abstain, especially in that situation)
This is why being with an experienced sitter is so important.
They can help you face the feelings underneath the thoughts and hold you in the experience.
I’ve sat for hundreds of hours of trips; including being the first person to do so on National TV in an underground setting; and I run a Breathwork group called BioMythic.com - having a sitter who can support you is a key part of a healthy set & setting.
Kicked my alcoholism and depression almost 3 years ago on accident with a recreational mushroom trip on holiday. Still doing great in both regards.
Two short bits of information. First dont screw around wit this. Set and setting. Understand what will happen and better get an experienced trip sitter you trust. Give at least The Psychedelic Explorer's Guide a read.
And while my urge to drink is still completely gone you have to do some work when it comes to depression. From personal experience i can say it works on multiple layers. There is
* Giving you a short term point of reference you can later aim for (experiencing how not being depressed looks like)
* Making changes to your entrenched thought patterns more easy in the short term
* Allowing for more self reflection (i later learned the cognitive behavioral therapy aims at something similar)
First point also got me to look into meditation. Eckhard Tolles Power of Now describes the same experience through meditation. In the end its no surprise that Timothy Leary found the Tibetan Book of the Dead a great trip sitting manual. See Sam Harris Waking up for a rational explanation.
edit: After talking with a few people who had bad trips my personal pet theory is that your likelihood drastically increases if you are overly attached to your own perspective. To the degree that you cant really imagine that your perspective on reality could be wrong. Not that this is safe otherwise, but be very very careful if that describes you. You are the kind of personal for whom anything on the spectrum to ego death might be very unpleasant.
I agree. As someone who is dealing with a loved one with metastatic cancer, the depression and anxiety for everyone involved is off the charts.
The idea around this solution, is it is something available now, so not a lot of research or costs need to be invested to get it going. Whereas immunotherapy or CAR T-cell therapy is still ongoing research and investment.
Not dying in general is an admirable goal; yet even if you can fix the cancer part of the equation those of us who don't get cancer will eventually die.
Could just be an assumption on my part. Maybe we will fix the "dying" part of the issue as well.
I don't think we want to "fix" dying. Some evil, sociopathic human somewhere would figure out a way to use that to harm people in a very profound way. I would also have to imagine that immortality would eventually become quite boring, even absent something like that.
I am skeptical of this. I have personally witnessed psychedelics enlightening minds, but also destroying them. I am also concerned with the reliability of evidence from psychedelic trials since I'm not clear on how a double-blind study could be conducted. At the end of the day, I'm fully in support of continued research, but I am hesitant to accept the kind of dramatic outcomes suggested by these studies.
> I have personally witnessed psychedelics enlightening minds, but also destroying them.
As with any drug. Any drug that can heal can also hurt. All drugs are a risk. Compare the rare side effects of psychedelics to the horrible (and also rare) side effects like Stevens-Johnson syndrome that you'll see in pharmaceuticals, the same ones that save people's lives.
I don't know if we have enough scientific data to say how rare they are. My anecdotal experience (including my own as an individual afflicted by HPPD) makes me believe they are not as rare as is often suggested.
These are subjective credentials, but IMO yes, and I've seen on several occasions an experienced sitter fail to prevent a bad trip. I don't blame the sitter for this, and we were always aware of the importance of set and setting, but it's my opinion that we are far less in control of the outcome of a trip than I think most pyschonaughts are willing to admit.
