
Hallucinogen in ‘magic mushrooms’ might have helped smokers quit - Libertatea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/09/12/hallucinogen-in-magic-mushrooms-might-have-helped-smokers-quit/
======
darkFunction
Mushrooms can be extremely introspective, I would imagine this could easily
lead people to re-evalute their life choices in a more permanent manner than
normal.

~~~
allegory
Or in a friend of mine, trigger latent schizophrenia, ruin his degree, lose
his girlfriend, flatshare and end up living in the back of his car for 3
years.

YMMV.

I'd rather not flip the coin on drug use. That goes for a fair number of
prescription drugs as well for reference.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Had a relative that was given intravenous penicillin by a GP and it almost
killed her. Knew a guy once that almost died by bee stings. Had a friend in
school who started smoking pot at age 12 and it destroyed his life.

Life is about risk, and everything we ingest has the risk to do terrible
things to us. You can die from too much water. So the question isn't whether
things or good or bad, rather who gets to assess the risk and what tools do
they use?

Would I want my 16-year-old assessing the risk of magic mushrooms? Hell no.
Would I want my drug addicted 35-year-old cousin? Yeah, probably. So the real
question is who gets to decide. And why. I'm completely comfortable with some
kind of psyilocybin addiction treatment coordinated (but not approved by) a GP
or LCSW.

I also would rather not flip the coin on drug use, including a fair number of
prescription drugs. But as a voter I remain convinced of my right to change my
mind and not have others make that choice for me. The problem we're seeing
now, that is only just getting started to be addressed, is that vast numbers
of chemicals have been off-limits for even scientific exploration of benefits.
That means nobody can assess the risk -- of things that might have great
benefit to mankind. That's whacked.

~~~
allegory
The thing is that health expenditure and legalisation are proportionally tied.

Thou who bites off the latter, increases the former in psychiatric and general
healthcare.

And that's not fair on everyone else. So perhaps you should forfeit your right
to free healthcare when you make that choice?

(I speak with respect to the NHS in the UK).

For ref, I'm allergic to penicillin as well. Fortunately because we have
research budgets, we have other antibiotics. Perhaps expenditure on drug
related problems (crime, psych, healthcare) should be diverted into that?

~~~
drewblaisdell
> Thou who bites off the latter, increases the former in psychiatric and
> general healthcare.

Do you have data on the overall cost of legalization/decriminalization?
_Surely_ the decrease in the cost of incarcerating drug offenders is
significant.

------
thefreeman
Anyone find a link to the actual study? The author basically presents this as:

\- take some smokers

\- give them therapy for 5 weeks

\- dose them up on psilocybin

\- hope they stop smoking.

I am guessing there was more to the study then that.

Also the results of the study are never even listed, except for saying that it
"worked in most cases".

Honestly, I am all for studying the affects of these drugs but this article is
pretty garbage.

~~~
chaosdesigner
only abstract seems to be freely available online:

[http://jop.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/09/06/026988111454...](http://jop.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/09/06/0269881114548296.abstract)

~~~
gwern
Here you go:

"Pilot study of the 5-HT2AR agonist psilocybin in the treatment of tobacco
addiction", Johnson et al 2014
[https://pdf.yt/d/i123Xa2YOeU3os-6](https://pdf.yt/d/i123Xa2YOeU3os-6) /
[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5317066/2014-johnson.pdf](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5317066/2014-johnson.pdf)
/
[http://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1177%2F0269881114548...](http://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1177%2F0269881114548296)

------
JetSpiegel
I think it's hypocritical to defend keeping other drugs illegal while allowing
alcohol and tobacco to thrive. Either we go full puritan and forbid all drug
use, or this talk of defending people from themselves is just protectionism
for the tobacco and alcohol industries.

------
weddpros
I know it's easier to say "it's obviously bad, so we must ban it"... but I
wanted to share some thoughts too. (I don't use drugs, I stopped smoking, I
still drink alcohol)

Cantaloupe can kill me (allergy), so I choose not to eat it. Darwin at work...
For similar reasons, I'm not pro-drugs.

But I don't think a ban on cantaloupe is needed, the same way I think drug
prohibition is not an appropriate response to drug abuse. I know it seems far
stretched, but please read on.

We base our choice on perceived risk vs benefits. People who decide to use
drugs that could kill them probably don't care about the law. If you accept a
high risk of death, jail shouldn't look like a major risk for you.

The fact that a majority of people have tried drugs prove that prohibition
only allows punishment, but it doesn't prevent drug abuse.

Reconsidering prohibition doesn't equal being lawless: if a drug addict
kills/hurts/steals from you, he risks jail anyway for that (not so much for
using drugs!). Prohibition doesn't protect us.

Reconsidering prohibition might open the society for more evolution. Research
could lead to real health benefits under medical supervision. Maybe a startup
could find ways to explore the effects of some drug safely. Maybe the society
would start teaching people about psychology and altered states of mind...
Maybe drug traffics would plummet, leading to less violence. Maybe we could
then treat all addictions, without a legal vs illegal barrier which is
probably barring some from seeking help. And I believe I'm not creative/clever
enough to imagine all those changes that would occur.

Lastly, it's widely accepted on HN that we must measure the effects of the
actions we take. Reconsidering prohibition will allow such measurement and
we'll build our future more wisely.

There will still be casualties, but think again about that cantaloupe... You
can't ban cantaloupe to save me from myself.

~~~
tibbon
I don't think that people using potentially dangerous drugs want the drug to
kill them, or have a complete disrespect of the law. While alcohol isn't an
_illegal_ drug let there be no mistake that it is absolutely a drug in every
sense of the word and there is high risk of abuse, dependence, and harm. A
huge number of people die each year from the abuse of alcohol. AA exists for a
reason and you can buy beer almost anywhere.

But let's not talk about drugs that pose a mortal risk for a moment. Instead,
let's focus on the topic at hand which is psychedelic drugs such as LSD,
psilocybin mushrooms, DMT, etc... These all carry different risk profiles
individually but overall it is safe to say that risk of dependence or lethal
overdose are several magnitudes less than that of alcohol, cocaine, nicotine,
or opiates. Yes, there is always the chance of a bad trip and it is entirely
possible that poor decisions are made on LSD or mushrooms (if you are making
poor decisions while on DMT, it would only be in conversations you're having
in your head as you aren't walking about on that drug). I also don't know
anyone addicted to LSD.

And while I've heard of few people having life-changing positive breakthroughs
while trash drunk on alcohol or buzzing from nicotine, I have met scores of
people who have had such experiences on comparatively safe psychedelics.

As you say, prohibition has run its course especially for psychedelic drugs
and must end. Are there 'bad' drugs out there? Absolutely! But there are many
more positive ways to deal with them through education and resources.

~~~
weddpros
I agree with you, on every point. As for risks, it's just a risk, a
probability... Cantaloupe won't kill me instantly either. And I've tried
hash/weed before (as well as another unidentified drug poured into my glass.
my girlfriend bought the glass. Probably GHB. I actually liked it, I only
regret not choosing it).

And I must say I'd like to try LSD.

Yet there's a risk. I've suffered a cerebral stroke 10 years ago, and that
condition could raise that risk. I'm aware of it. Anyway, _I_ decide.

Prohibition? yes, it's hugely inefficient. We grow as we learn to deal with
our lives by ourself... Prohibition tries to prevent the society from coping
with problems, without avoiding the problems themselves. How is it supposed to
even work?

------
infinity0
"Heroin might have helped smokers quit".

~~~
infinity0
It's incredible how any anti-drug sentiment touches a nerve of the pro-drugs
crowd here. Multiple people were offended enough to go and downvote every one
of allegory's comments. This is fucking ridiculous and you should be ashamed
of yourself. You claim that "we need a debate" but you react to expressions of
anti-drug sentiment, by putting up a straw man interpretation and downvoting
without explaining yourself. What the fuck? Your downvote deserves a downvote.

My original comment is pointing out the title is stupid and uninformative.

~~~
EdwardDiego
> Multiple people were offended enough to go and downvote every one of
> allegory's comments.

I can't downvote, so I'm not one of those who anger you so much, but allegory
is most likely being downvoted for presenting anecdotes as conclusive evidence
and dismissively referring to anyone who disagrees with him as having opinions
lacking experience.

If we're dressing up anecdote as evidence then I have plenty of my own, but
I'm well aware of how useless they are at informing debate.

~~~
infinity0
He is not being downvoted for those fake-impassionate reasons. Some others
have negated this bullshit and re-upvoted, but during the worst of it, all of
his comments, even the ones that didn't exhibit what you say, were downvoted
multiple times.

