←back to thread

Bill Atkinson's psychedelic user interface

(patternproject.substack.com)
426 points cainxinth | 8 comments | 11 Jul 25 11:03 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
demiters ◴[11 Jul 25 12:11 UTC] No.44531227[source]▶
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.
replies(14): >>44531266 #>>44531301 #>>44531309 #>>44531336 #>>44531403 #>>44532013 #>>44532020 #>>44532191 #>>44533028 #>>44533191 #>>44533451 #>>44533539 #>>44534271 #>>44536123 #
1. hnlmorg ◴[11 Jul 25 12:15 UTC] No.44531266[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>44531308 #>>44531675 #
2. demiters ◴[11 Jul 25 12:21 UTC] No.44531308[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>44531662 #
3. JKCalhoun ◴[11 Jul 25 13:03 UTC] No.44531662[source]▶
Perhaps administration of the drug from a professional? Make the treatment an affordable and legal option.
replies(2): >>44532056 #>>44532507 #
4. mathiaspoint ◴[11 Jul 25 13:04 UTC] No.44531675[source]▶
I think with psychedelics it's fine. The problems you're talking about are with addictive stimulants.
replies(1): >>44532575 #
5. athenot ◴[11 Jul 25 13:42 UTC] No.44532056{3}[source]▶
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.

6. zoklet-enjoyer ◴[11 Jul 25 14:24 UTC] No.44532507{3}[source]▶
That sounds awful. I'll stick to my home and nature
7. asveikau ◴[11 Jul 25 14:31 UTC] No.44532575[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>44532783 #
8. mathiaspoint ◴[11 Jul 25 14:50 UTC] No.44532783{3}[source]▶
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.