Bill Atkinson's psychedelic user interface

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?

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

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.

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.

> 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

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.

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!

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.

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.”

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?)

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

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.

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.

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

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.