That's the thing, you just like to think that. Yet, you offer no evidence to back your claim, or your expertise in the matter. At best, your evidence is anecdotal (so far) and cannot be used in a more general discussion about psychedelics.
My thesis was on how research in psychedelics can help us learn more about schizophrenia (I wasn't interested in any of prescribed topics so my lecturer said I could do whatever but it would have to be without guidance).
Scientific knowledge won't help much in the way of steering clear of a bad trip. It's more about common sense (set / setting, dosage) and knowing yourself and your own mind.
My question to you is, do you think psychedelics should be more controlled than alcohol? Given how intoxication by alcohol can cause as much social harm as a bad trip.
I'm also wondering if we can create a set of metrics, free from anecdotal evidence and any political context, by which we can use to categorize different drugs (alcohol included) based on social harm, self harm, long lasting damage, etc. and then use this to define which of those we ban/regulate/decriminalize etc. I know that may sound a bit naive, but using a pure scientific approach to this could give us quite different results than the current state of things, where some of the most dangerous substances are legal because there's a lobby behind them. The only thing I found similar to this is this assessment referenced on the LSD wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#/me...
Holland did the OTC experiment already and there must be interesting data about this somewhere. I don't think OTC would be a good idea, maybe I'm just overly cautious.
At the moment, anyone with sufficient motivation can get psychedelics at the click of a button and here in W-Europe nobody will really face any serious legal consequences for personal use. Testing kits are widely available. The current situation is not a bad one.
> Given how intoxication by alcohol can cause as much social harm as a bad trip.
I don't think (bad) trips would cause much social harm at all actually. Psychedelics have an unpredictability to them that warrants caution in a way that doesn't apply to alcohol (or sky diving, rock climbing ...)
Medical prescriptions are required (in part) because of the potential side effects. If 1% of all paracetamols would drag the person through a mental hell scape, it wouldn't be available OTC either.
Just some thoughts, the discussion is a difficult one.
Right... But we still sell nuts to people allergic to nuts, and we still sell alcohol to people who end up beating their wives and then think it never happened.
I don’t believe your point is reasonable at all.
I am in favor of legalization to reduce legal, financial and social problems and not because drugs (including psychedelics including cannabis) are harmless.
What does that mean?
Ie, you decide you’d like to trip at the Phish show and the old man next to you offers you mushrooms, unsolicited, after you haven’t been offered mushrooms for 50 shows.
That type of thing.
Also interesting to note that LSD & MDMA have similar origin stories. They were both previously synthesized and catagorized as unuseful and then interesting characters had a flash of insight to resynthesize them after decades of being dormant.
Hard to explain why. I like to think I have a higher than average understanding about them and they've still dragged me through hell on one or two occasions.
Holland already did this experiment since you used to be able to buy mushrooms over the counter. Quite a few tourists lost their minds or worse.
Nobody should ever face legal consequences for personal use of any drug but they should remain hard to find.
Anyway everyone knows you don't find acid, acid finds you.