I strongly incline towards legalisation but I want a proper discussion based on evidence with those who hold a different viewpoint that I can learn from and bounced my ideas off, not simply attempt to shut down the discussion as happens here by some people, by any means they can.

> I think there are still tons of people that could benefit from it

That may well be true but-

> I hold the opinion that most people are right not to take psychedelics

- you seem to have just opposed what you said, and it sounds as if you're willing to make other adults' decisions for them, which deeply bothers me. Perhaps you meant something more nuanced.

> it sounds as if you're willing to make other adults' decisions for them, which deeply bothers me

I'm not Logan, but I can't really see how you came to that conclusion - I'll try to explain.

We do think that people who choose not to take the risk of psychedelics are justified in their decision. Even for individuals where psychedelic use could be beneficial, we think it's better for them to wait until the risk is acceptable to them - which may or may not happen.

In other words, we think the Venn diagram of "people who are justified in their decision not to take psychedelics right now" and "people who could benefit from psychedelic use" has some overlap, we just don't know how much. We also think that a lot of the people who already use psychedelics or intend to use them can benefit, just like we also recognize that plenty of other users may not benefit for one reason or another.

I apologize on Logan's behalf if the original comment was unclear.

-Emily (see HN profile for details)

Our positions are subtly different it seems. I certainly know of some people who I'm sure psychedelics or other drugs would assist greatly, but to me the decision has to be that person's always. To say "I hold the opinion that most people are right not to take psychedelics" unnerves me because it implies (or I read into it) that your opinion matters in their ___domain of being able to choose, as adults. To me, even to think that way seems dangerous because the next step is trying to impose it.

I'm not saying that you are, it's just given my position that person's choices must be utterly their own[1], that's how it sounded to me. It would simply not cross my mind to think like that. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[1] of course, bounded by the damage they can do to other people, that's a very different matter

> the decision has to be that person's always

I went to great lengths to try to clarify that we are specifically saying there is only overlap because we don't want people to try psychedelics before they are ready. "ready" means when they choose that they want to try it.

Keep in mind that I'm not the one who wrote the second-last comment of ours, that was Logan, but I highly doubt he would want to choose for anyone, either.

-Emily

Subtleties in people's positions can be difficult to interpret in text. I misunderstood yours, that's all! We seem to be in complete agreement.

It's like any other pharma - its only beneficial to a subgroup who have a condition it can treat. Here's an example. Millions of people benefit from taking insulin. Yet most people are right in not taking insulin.

I'm talking about psychedelics used recreationally, although I know from personal experience how valuable they can be in sorting out personal internal problems. Also, a psychedelics deficiency won't kill you unlike insulin.

Yet a psychedelics overdose can absolutely kill you, even if you ordered something safe* (like LSD) and it turned out to be something dangerous like NBOMe instead. Which happens because these drugs haven't been legalized yet, so you can't buy them from known, vetted sources - no sources on the dark web are known or vetted.

*there have currently been no known deaths from LSD overdoses, even for people who took tens of milligrams (which is tens of thousands of times higher than a normal recreational dose), but there are still plenty of deaths from irresponsible actions while on LSD, and plenty more cases of people surviving but still getting absolutely fucked mentally.

I said "a psychedelics deficiency won't kill you unlike insulin". Deficiency, I said. So why are you talking about overdose.

Obviously an overdose of anything will kill you, including water, so what was your point.

> Deficiency, I said. So why are you talking about overdose.

...I was trying to add to your point because you were basically saying something along the lines of "there is no condition that requires someone to take psychedelics" and I wanted to add "plus taking psychedelics can be risky because it's easy to overdose" (which it absolutely is if you don't get the product you ordered, which is unfortunately quite common).

I'm so dumbfounded by this argument I can't even explain what I find wrong with it, sorry.

> you were basically saying something along the lines of "there is no condition that requires someone to take psychedelics"

Not that I was saying that but ok, is there one?

Edit: I'm sorry, this conversation has just gone in a very odd way and I don't know how or why. Pretty sure we got wires crossed again. Anyways, no offence.

> Not that I was saying that but ok, is there one?

no, I was trying to agree with you.