Bill Atkinson's psychedelic user interface

Not a big fan of the ongoing productisation of transcendental, possibly brain-scrambling experiences. Keeping them somewhat less accessible tends to filter out people who don't do their homework to understand the substance and who consider it just another novel experience to try on a whim, which increases the risk of negative outcomes.

That has been various governments approach to drugs for literally decades and it got us nowhere.

The problem isnt that this still is casually available. Drugs have been casually available since forever.

The problem is that pushing drug usage to the fringes makes it less safe for people who haven’t done their homework. Ironically the exact opposite of that you claimed.

> do their homework to understand the substance

Is that actually the common thing to do amongst recreational psychadelics users (i.e. is there research backing this up)?

And how do these folks "understand the substance(s)"? We (humanity) know very little about how the brain works comparatively as far as I'm aware, and psychadelics research is further relatively lacking due to regulatory and funding constraints. Most resources I hear of just seem to be compilations of anecdata, frequently muddled with subjective remarks.

You're right. I'm all for across-the-board decriminalisation btw. But I don't really know where a responsible balance would be for psychedelic availability, my intuition is we shouldn't be aiming at OTC disposable DMT vapes etc.

I suppose this is a dangerous counterargument to make, especially as I'm not a substance user at all myself, but... what's wrong with wanting to seek out novel experiences? I'd much rather folks who wish to do this be able to do so safely, with good sources of information about those risks and with a support network that is allowed to talk about it. I feel like the taboo nature of substances in general causes folks with this interest to hide it from their peers, exactly the people who would otherwise be first in line to spot problems and offer assistance. Shouldn't it be okay to talk about it?

> Keeping them somewhat less accessible

I agree this is important, which is why psychedelics should be legalized so there is at least some sort of control instead of the current approach where 14 year olds can easier get their hands on it.

I can only speak for my own circle that I know about where test kits are the norm. Anecdata isn't ideal but it does seem to be valuable as long as the reader considers both positive and negative reports equally and understands the risks rather than just yoloing. I still consider Erowid a great harm reduction resource, TripSit wiki is also fantastic, and I very much support the approach taken by the Subjective Effect Index website.

I'm of very two minds on this topic. On one hand, it's widely accepted that most (not to say all) drugs leave a permanent mark on brains that are not yet fully developed, so teenagers who are often most curious about these things. Gated access is highly desirable in this context, especially as you can't take self regulation for granted. On the other hand, many of these substances show great promise in many clinical trials for a wide variety of issues, and decades of hostile legislation has kept all of that on the back foot. Openly sharing information about these topics can help people make more informed choices whereas those who came before them often had to go it blind.

Yeah - I feel like we need a little bit more of a stripped down approach to drugs in the US. If you’re 18 or under, there need to be a lot of restrictions because we know for a fact that a lot of these things have a profound negative impact on brain development, and we also know that we don’t even fully understand the extent to which various mind altering substances can impact development. It’s just safer to say “no” until then as much as I am loath to endorse anything remotely akin to prohibition culture.

Teens will always get their hands on things so it’s up to parents to teach kids how to be safe around drugs and alcohol, but I know I personally will be really trying to communicate to my kids that they need to wait until they’re 18 to really start exploring all this stuff. I know they will before that, but as long as it’s a little experimentation here and there and not regular use I’ll consider it a success.

Once you’re past 18 or so, it needs to be all about education and general availability for most substances. Safe usage and community protections (such as not driving while intoxicated) should be the #1 goal.

I see, fair enough. I'd be just hesitant to say "xy keeps yz from doing zx" without data, cause it sounds like a claim (or even a fact) rather than an opinion/anecdote, and it's pretty hard to pick up on this difference.

We were able to clarify it and we're both being decent sports about the topic, but you can imagine how well this might go over in less careful and open minded situations. Or even desperate ones.

> I know they will before that

I'm curious in what demographic/location context you're in to say that. As a teen I wasn't aware of anyone in my social circles experimenting with drugs and would estimate usage to be <10% and from very particular kinds of people.

Perhaps administration of the drug from a professional? Make the treatment an affordable and legal option.

I think with psychedelics it's fine. The problems you're talking about are with addictive stimulants.

Teenagers (in the US) before they go to college pretty typically at least try weed and alcohol at some point. Whether or not they tell their parents is a different story entirely

I was on a student exchange in the US at age ~15 and was offered both weed and alcohol. Funnily enough, weed seemed to be easier to get since dealers don't care about your age. For alcohol you needed to find someone older than 21 who'd buy it for you.

They are totally OK as long as healthcare is not socialized.

I disagree. Every time I've seen someone get a "bad trip", they're people who read a lot and worked themselves into a state of anxiety over the fact that something could go wrong. If they had just approached it like "ooh lets get high and have fun" rather than "I have to do X, Y, Z or else it's going to be horrible!", they would have probably been OK. Hallucinogens have way too much gatekeeping and mysticalization around them for what they are.

Understanding the risks of buying potentially adulterated or counterfeit products is another thing entirely, which would be helped greatly by increased commodification and legalization.

It also makes doing your homework a lot harder. If I want to buy alcohol, I can go to a shop and can get something that’s correctly labeled with an alcohol percentage and is highly unlikely to contain methanol.

If I go buy some psychedelic, chances are it is diluted or laced, so I would have to know how to test that what they sell me is what I asked for.

There's angles to socialization. If a person with brain issues gets free doctor visits and a medicine, that is at cost to society.

If they are safe to be around and are able to hold a job or have children, then there's societal benefits gained. One could consider the treatment costs as investments.

If that person was untreated and they did something unpleasant or bad in public, or ended up in prison, that also has a cost to society though it might be more complex to quantify.

The difficulty here is professional skill entails money, money entails risk management, risk management entails legalities.

The only way in the US is to have a powerful lobby that can fight to ensure broad waivers stand up in court, like the NRA: you can buy a gun and literally shoot yourself in the foot.

But if transaction, money, service, profession are all removed, then under a co-op / non profit this might work. Of course, those structures are also vulnerable to well-funded legal opponents.

Some European countries do provide a framework for this but it's more from a public health perspective and to eliminate the raison-d'être of criminal drug organizations.

Does that line of reasoning extend to things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes? Not trying to undermine your point, just genuinely curious.

Whilst that might true as per your observations, I've also seen people do zero research, take a substance in the wrong place/frame of mind, and subsequently had a more turbulent experience than they were expecting

The thing that bothers me the most are the companies out here trying to get psychedelics to a state where they own the tech and can try to make as much money as possible off of it. Not so much the part where it becomes more available with consistent quality for more users.

I was getting ads for MindMed's clinical trials of their LSD analogue a few months back and was considering signing up for it, as I'm totally down with more scientific research on these compounds. However, the idea that a corporation with a patent on an analogue that is lobbying to make it so their version is the one that is approved is kinda the worst. We already have LSD, it's cheap and it's amazing, yet here we are marching down the road of some patented version being the one that's approved for use. I get that these companies want to fund research, but this isn't the way.

Yes to both.

We often attract certain types of people, and have a wealth of experience with that type.

We probably all take this as obvious knowledge. But only when I uncomfortably enter a group of people unlike me -- and feel totally alienated not just by their norms and assumptions, but their misunderstandings of my own -- only then do I truly confront the implications in a visceral, non-academic sense :)

> things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes?

motorcycles...? in... my eyes?

What wizardry is this? First "computers in my brain", now this. I'll have the singularity that you're smoking pls :)

EDIT: was at first genuinely confused, and then tickled by my own misunderstanding

Welcome to the USA. Psychedelics are just the tip of an iceberg here. There's shit like highly effective cough medicines or antidepressants available in other countries which show promise in saving lives but nope mired in patent stuff and corrupt regulation...

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/european-cough-medicine-...

I don't see why not. Maybe no need to ban altogether, but a heavy tax on both might be useful. For motorbikes maybe just exclude accidents from coverage.

You are assuming treatment benefits, but the comment was about "recreational" use and its consequences.

That sounds awful. I'll stick to my home and nature

With psychedelics the risk profile is very different. Firstly, people can do harmful things during the trip. Second, a more vague, difficult to measure and predict concern around long term psychological effects to some people.

Right, my pronoun is dangling here. "It" was meant to refer to the status quo of making them inaccessible without a lot of difficulty and breaking the law.

The high horse of HN generally suggests that every person on the planet does empirical research on every step of their journey through life. I've personally seen several, otherwise normal people, one-shot their brain into purgatory with hallucinogens.

I'd be interested in seeing specifics on brain development. When are they "fully developed" or what is a sufficient point that they could be considered to be. What other things do we practice that should be gated around brain development?

Incidental gatekeeping by leaving it on the black market isn't the way to keep it safe, quite the opposite - that poses a lot of dangerous risks.

Bringing it into the light under thoughtful consideration and openly discussing and encouraging harm prevention is the only way to make this safe. Everyone should have the right to to exploring this if they want to, and there should be plenty of open discussion, research, and education. I really appreciate the open-source approach here, the spirit of this movement feels like the right thing for humanity.

I guess they aren’t very widespread anymore, but should this cover police who ride motorbikes? Or farm/ranch workers (they might ride ATVs)?

I guess we could do something like:

    <normal coverage> - <adjustment for risky behavior> + <adjustment for pro-social outcomes> 

But I think we will have trouble puzzling out the last term!

I feel similar about this productisation but for slightly different reasons. Psychedelics can provide a sacred experience, at least they have for me, and I treat each psychedelic experience I have as a sacred ritual. It’s a sacrament. So forcing them into the materialist, capitalist system we currently have just feels so wrong. It’d be like a company coming out with pre-blessed Eucharist cookies. But worse because what you are shown so often reveals how insidious capitalism is, and how there is so much more than the material realm. I know this is just my personal view and experience. Anyway, I don’t feel so bad about LightWand as the whole point was the open source, sharing nature.

Four entered the garden: Ben Azzi, Ben Zoma, Acher and Akiva. One looked and died. One looked and was harmed. One cut down all the trees. And one entered in peace and departed in peace.

I’m fine with ‘less accessible’ - I am not fine with ‘criminal.’

Lemme guess, Ben Zoma was the peaceful one?

I didn't know this story, but thanks for pointing this out. It's scary how people in this thread talk about hallucinogens like they could not ruin your life.

Citing Sam Harris:

“Ingesting a powerful dose of a psychedelic drug is like strapping oneself to a rocket without a guidance system. One might wind up somewhere worth going, and, depending on the compound and one’s “set and setting,” certain trajectories are more likely than others. But however methodically one prepares for the voyage, one can still be hurled into states of mind so painful and confusing as to be indistinguishable from psychosis.”

“This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, some people cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug.”

That's true with anything, though.

There are jurisdictions where it's legal, and shops that will ship it virtually anywhere. The product is pure, tested, and consistent.

Of course you have to find such a shop (hint: try Canada), and it's still a lot of hassle for something that should be perfectly legal, and is, in many places.

I know two people who had prolonged psychotic episodes, as in, for weeks they were in their own world. These were both people who had many fun/enjoyable experiences beforehand.

I myself have had bad / hell like experiences a small percentage of the time, despite literal hundreds of good experiences prior.

Becoming a father many years ago significantly altered my trip experience.

Dosage also plays a strong role..

These things are generally less toxic than alcohol and it is criminal to punish someone for having them or using them.. But they are also extremely powerful, and despite potential amazing experiences, do carry risks.

And they are definitely not for everyone.

> Keeping them somewhat less accessible tends to filter out people who don't do their homework

I strongly disagree. Your circles might be different, but in my experience, wanting to do your homework makes it less accessible, because it tends to put you at odds with the people who are otherwise eager to grant you access. They want people with a certain mindset and an up-front faith in the process. They want people who aren't careful about ingesting psychoactive substances, are eager to put their mental health in the hands of some guy they barely know, and are going to blame their own baggage or spiritual shortcomings if it doesn't go well.

These drugs, and many others, are already pretty accessible if you are willing to take that heedless approach.

In contrast, the approach described in the article is expressly tailored for people who want to be careful and do their homework. It's for people who have access to the drug and implicitly already have access to cruder ways of using it, but who want to put in extra effort for a more controlled experience.

Nope! Rabbi Akiva, who, as the story goes, was an illiterate shepherd until he started studying in his 40s, and went on to become one of the most renowned scholars of his era. This is why some Jewish tradition teaches that for mystical study, one should wait until the age of 40

I think motorcyclists should pay more for health insurance insurance considering they will use it way more often no matter how well a driver they are, the risks are simply always present.

One has to draw the line somewhere. What you are doing is called a slippery slope fallacy.

I’m not sure it is a slippery slope. With a slippery slope we expand the scenario through a sequence of “if X, when what’s to stop Y,” right?

Motorcycle cops are an obvious subset of people who ride motorcycles. It isn’t an extension at all to include them in your logic.

ATVs might be more of an extension. But, I bet if we wanted to we could find all sorts of jobs that are more dangerous than motorcycle riding.

(Edit: just to be specific, you say we have to draw the line somewhere. Well, then where?)

I have a family member who jumped off a balcony on LSD and needed extensive reconstructive facial surgery. I'd call that a pretty bad trip. It's kind of kept me away from anything more than mushrooms.

If they die more often in accidents, and their organs are harvested from that, they should pay less though, right?

Can you explain how it changed after being a father?

I tripped a lot in my early 20s, a whole lot, and never had a bad time. Well, I had some uncomfortable experiences, but not what I can now call a bad trip.

One of my first times after, in my experience, I literally went to hell. I was convinced I was on the outskirts, all the people at the party around me were demons, I was about to be tortured forever, and I was never going to see my son again and he was going to grow up without me..

I convinced myself I was in that position because I had wrecked and killed someone, and my punishment was forever replaying the experiencing of a life where I would grow up to have a son, only to have him ripped away from me, reminded of what I did, and then tortured for some nearly eternal amount of time....

Any conversations people had with me at the time, I heard the words they were saying but completely twisted the meaning of the words to fit whatever crazy narrative was going on in my head.

This has happened 4 or 5 times. Despite being familiar with the experience, in my mind it just reinforces that I am in a "loop" at the time, about to be tortured again..

It's happened with LSD, Mushrooms, and surprisingly even ketamine. *edit it also happened during an intense changa experience with a shaman in Tijuana, which was my most intense experience with anything to date..

You'd think I would not take this stuff anymore =p I have at least slowed down considerably...

There's a long list of topics where this particular reasoning could draw a line somewhere. It is unfeasible and pointless to cover them all unless they are all banned or all allowed (this essentially is the current state +- AFAIK).

I'd say it is worth looking at redrawing that based on the maximum effect achieved. Drugs would be at the top of this list, followed by motor vehicle use and unhealthy foods. There is probably not enough justification to go beyond the 3.

Basically this. Many times I've gotten too casual with them and then been reminded that they are not a party drug. Persistent HPPD(ok, redundant) and long lasting anxiety and/or motor issues(tics).. inability to focus. It's great that there are people who can gobble psychs like candy and not have issues(that they're aware of anyway) but they need to chill on trying to get everyone to trip out. I get it. I felt that "everyone should try this" vibe. But seriously, no. Don't take people's psychology lightly.

Also worth noting that persistent negative effects do not require a bad trip. You can have a wonderful time and still have long lasting issues.

I’m not clear on what the effect actually is. If it is cost reduction, not sure where motorcycles should be on the list (they are probably more costly for life insurance agencies than for health insurance ones…).

I guess I’ve been beating around the bush, but my point is that targeting drugs specifically for this sort of thing would seem kind of, I dunno, puritanical to me (as someone who doesn’t partake). I’d rather just insure everybody and hope they don’t hurt themselves, just out of their own self interest.

Regarding your trip to hell, I'm interested to know if you have a lifelong belief in heaven and hell, or if it came by itself during the trip.

As an atheist with no supernatural beliefs (that I know of), I wonder if a trip on LSD for me would just be boring, or if these supernatural things become real during a trip even if you don't truly believe in them.

I am definitely influenced by Christianity..

Regardless of your beliefs, whatever your experience, I highly doubt you would find it "boring".

I can't even imagine that really, it would take a very boring person.

I've heard a lot of acid stories, but never "I was just kind of bored"

It's unlikely you'd find it boring simply because you're an atheist. The experience is typically quite intense, although it's dose-dependent as well as setting-dependent. I'm agnostic but my own experience was a heightened sense of panpsychism which went away later, because my rational, scientific mind didn't find the idea highly plausible.

I was going to say that but apparently motorcyclists only make up a small percent of organ donation

You don't need religion or other beliefs - LSD has a strong body high, it feels good even if you don't get strong visual hallucinations. I gather that there are strong conditioning effects that determine what people see when they do hallucinate though - you won't encounter anything you had no concept of in the first place.

Puritanical is just a label here that you slap on the idea you don't like. In the US drug overdoses are the top cause of death under 35. I have no idea how to properly estimate severe harm that does not result in death but if you take say war as the first approximation, you can 4x the deaths to get non-fatal severe cases.

> For motorbikes maybe just exclude accidents from coverage.

From personal experience, this is de-facto true regardless of what anyone thinks the law says.

'in your view' would probably have been a better choice of words.

In general, interpolating statistics based on your personal world view is often misguided. Almost fifty percent of all Americans have tried drugs at least once in their lives [0], you simply won't know about it because most won't speak about it openly. Statistically you're unknowingly acquaintances with a number of people who fall into that category. To quote [1]:

> By the time they’re in 12th grade, 46.6% of teens have tried illicit drugs.

[0] https://www.addictionhelp.com/addiction/statistics/

[1] https://drugabusestatistics.org/teen-drug-use/

I've had remarkably similar bad trips, unfortunately I didn't make it out as unscathed.

I tell people: I had both the best day of my life, and the worst day of my life on psychedelics.

I'd done multiple hard drugs well before I had sex for the first time, in the USA.

I guess that speaks a bit to the culture and availability of both things here in the States.