There were olympics this year huh?

>>548
Glad to know I wasn't the only one who paid basically zero attention to it. It feels like it was barely mentioned in general.

>>458
Reusing this for discussion on >>/an/36852. Japan's not exactly some drug-free haven. Also if you're having this discussion you can't exclude alcohol either, which is arguably worse than something like hallucinogens.

>>1584
It's not, nowhere is. But they are very rare particularly compared to the west. You can simply look up the statistics if you really want.

>>1584
Alcohol is different, it doesn't have the same effects either, the effects are different drug use is known to lower IQ as well as having other impacts(again you can look this up).

Alcohol can be abused and can and does cause many societal issues, I do not deny this but it does not alter the mind in the same way. And unlike other substances, there actually is a very long and reliable record of it;s use.

>>1584
I'm glad there's other reasonable people.

>>1587
>drug use is known to lower IQ
>again you can look this up
That's your job. I'm not going to do your research for you. And to be pedantic, caffeine and alcohol are both drugs, and they both have effects on the brain, so that's a ridiculous generalization to make. Even assuming thc and psilocybin have the same effect of the brain is ridiculous.

>>1588
It's not my job, I could go through google scholar and post random studies for you to read or not read, or you could just go to Wikipedia, I think they even mention this there as well as other negative impacts(I'm not sure if they mention the increase in the number of psychiatric patients and other psychiatric issues that have occurred in US states that legalised it and there are probably other things like that they would leave out but still).
I already have done the research before, I am not going through it all again and finding the links for you again(particularly as google scholar has issues with links, they often do not allow you to view the entire study but instead just an abstract). Go and research this yourself.


I don't mean to be rude but if you seriously compare the effect of caffeine and marijuana, think they are even vaguely similar and don't see an issue with this assumption then you are an idiot.
THC and Psilocybin may not have the exact same impacts but many of the mechanisms are similar and they do both strongly effect the experience of the user, nobody gets high from drinking coffee.

Post edited on 16th Dec 2022, 11:19pm

>>1588
>drug use is known to lower IQ
Would be interested to see the specific study being cited here, I don't think you can handwave it as common knowledge since even double-blinded studies of intentional pharmaceutical interventions are really fuzzy, so any observational study on something like this is going to be sketchy at best.

Probably going into more detail on specifics is better done in >>/420/ (I'm not sure why exactly that rule exists, but might as well use that board for something)?

>>1589
>Go and research this yourself.
I did. There's nothing conclusive about psilocybin's effect on iq.
>if you seriously compare the effect of caffeine and marijuana
I'm commenting on your use of language.
>many of the mechanisms are similar and they do both strongly effect the experience of the user
Oh, well, case closed then.

>>1590
>the specific study being cited here
There is none.

>>1590
Well it's not just one study, numerous studies have been done on this and have come to that conclusion. I grant you, some have better methodology and more participants than others, which is another reason why I want you to research this yourself and not get me to do it for you. If I do that I will have to go through numerous studies again to find the ones that have the most flawless research so you don't say not enough participants were involved or it did not account for socio-economic background or whatever.

I am not using a stoner board, we should not even have one.

>>1592
>not using a stoner board
Suit yourself, though I did post my thoughts there since it seems an even more appropriate place than /tat/. And I don't have a particular horse in this race (though for what it's worth I've never even drunk alcohol), I just think it's silly to get riled up over this to the extent of not even wanting to visit a board that's been dead for years now.

>>1590
>Probably going into more detail on specifics is better done in >>/420/
I'm fine with allowing debates on drugs here.

>>1593
>I just think it's silly to get riled up over this to the extent of not even wanting to visit a board that's been dead for years now.

I don't like talking about this subject, I don't like researching it and I don't like seeing meme images of it that I know I would see on a board like that. All of this makes me think of a subject I hate and find disgusting when really I would rather never think of it at all, which is part of the reason why I reacted the way I did to the post that started all of this in the first place. It's something that I don't want to see, that I don't want to think about. Yet western society will not allow me that luxury.
This is yet another reason why I don't want to go back into google scholar and look this all up again, even if it's supporting my argument I don't want all that in my head and I don;t want to spend more time on this than I have to. I have gone to far as it is and I regret making the post I did.

I have addressed the point that I had aimed to address originally(that being hemp in Japan and Medieval Europe). You can look up the studies if you want, I am not sure how much more I will continue with this conversation because as I said, it's a conversation I find distasteful.

>>1594
Ack, thanks. I'll copy the response from there to here to save everyone an extra tab:

For the specific case of Marijuana, yes I see some studies showing drop in IQ. But there are also more recent studies that don't show any drop. More investigation seems needed, possibly stratifying by age-group, usage frequency, and dose. Possibly also could be selection effect here where IQ is correlated with being successful in life and successful people don't generally take up smoking in the first place. There is a plausible biological mechanism, which is why I wouldn't necessarily advocate it, but to claim that it's more dangerous than e.g. alcohol seems quite absurd.

As for psychadelics like mushrooms, LSD, or DMT, I've seen a lot of studies that at low doses these are supposedly even beneficial for resolving trauma, or promoting neuroplasticity. Also psychadelics have been a part of many religions, so it cannot be written off there. Panning these seems even more dubious.

What I'd be more interested in is why you don't consider alcohol to be as bad as the other two. From what I've read psychadelics surely don't really make you aggressive or a public nuisance, because at high enough doses to be an issue you won't even be able to stand straight.

As for cannabis link to aggression, I did find this exact study (I do wonder how they even got grant money for this. "Let's get a bunch of test subjects to get high and drunk" and gauge their response)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-016-4371-1

>It is concluded that alcohol facilitates feelings of aggression whereas cannabis diminishes aggressive feelings in heavy alcohol and regular cannabis users, respectively.

>>1596
>As for psychadelics like mushrooms, LSD, or DMT, I've seen a lot of studies that at low doses these are supposedly even beneficial for resolving trauma, or promoting neuroplasticity.
As have I, but they will ignore that because it doesn't fit their bias.

>>1595
>This is yet another reason why I don't want to go back into google scholar and look this all up again
Of course there's no reason why you should partake in a discussion if you don't like it, but chiding others for what was ostensibly an idiomatic joke in the first place seems excessively prudish. If it bothers you to that extent, then you should write a userscript to automatically hide all posts that you'd find distateful.

Post edited on 16th Dec 2022, 11:54pm

>>1596
I have seen some more recent studies that support the drop in IQ as well, though yes it is something that does need more research.

Many of the religious associations are dubious as well.

I do consider alcohol an issue but it's more an issue at the time it is being used itself and it's often something that exacerbates existing issues somebody might mentally have(because it reduces inhibition).
It does not appear to fundamentally change the mind and mentality of the person who uses it in the way that other substances do, it has very short term affects often followed by a negative effect that serves to deter further excessive use. I don't drink, I can see why it should be banned as well but it's also so ingrained in society and tradition that it would be hard anyway. Even if it was the same as x substance, just because alcohol is bad does not mean we should then also allow an equally bad substance and make things even worse than they are with alcohol, you just add two sets of issues(one a relatively unknown one) instead of the one we already do have and know.
Psychedelics may not make you a public nuisances in the way but they do seem to be linked with extreme crimes like murder caused by schizophrenics who may be created by that. Not something I have seen studies on, but I have not looked, it's just a link that I have seen with many crimes like that.

It seems that way but that the same time there are strong correlations with cannabis and crime. But this is a difficult subject as you could also say that cannabis users come from backgrounds that are more likely to commit such crimes in the first place but then how much does that actually account for this? Again this is something more study needs to be done on.

>>1598
Drug can be used in different contexts that would not be disgusting so filtering that might be extreme and it would not filter images. If I could block individual posters that would be more useful, it would kill multiple birds with one stone as these posters are generally the worst kind anyway.

>>1597
It seems that it can promote neurogenesis but that it can also significantly reduce it in higher dosages. The study I saw about this was on mice. There were studies on humans using proportionally lower amounts but I don't know how that correlates to real world use and dosage in things like Mushrooms, maybe the dosage they were giving these people was so low that it could not even have a psychedelic effect and if you actually did take it in that high a range as to use it as an intoxicant you would then start seeing a decline in neurogenesis.

However, excersise also increases neurogenesis, many things do.

It seems to have a negative correlation with depression, so anti-depressants can cause neurogenesis by reducing depression, maybe that is what DMT is doing but in higher doses maybe it causes it instead.

>>1601
You're referring to this study? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23727882/

That's a very artificial setup, and generalizing something like this from mice to humans is very sketchy, for reasons you noted but also more generally. Large-scale observational study over time in actual would probably be better for this one. Ir's still not clear cut, but at the very least for short term usage it seems quite safe, possibly even safer than traditional drug cocktails prescribed by shrinks:

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/psilocybin-in-10mg-or-25mg-doses-has-no-short-or-long-term-detrimental-effects-in-healthy-people

One important factor is that the psychedelics are usually administered in a professional setting and accompanied by traditional "talk" therapy to help process things. Without that I could imagine it's possible to mess things up for yourself at the higher dosages. Smaller doses not large enough to elicit any psychedelic effect might still be useful though, that's not clear at this point either. Still that only shows there's absolutely no reason to denigrate drugs altogether (well at least this category at least, the opioids and stuff that have clearly immediate and long-term negative impacts are a different story).

And moreover still not any worse than alcohol: not drinking at all has been supposedly shown to be better than mild drinking, and given alcohol possible link to lowering inhibition/increasing aggression, as a whole you could argue it poses a far wider issue to society.

Also alcohol can impact the brain as well (correlative, as observational). More generally even without it, you can observe that "being hungover" isn't a good thing, and there's a plausible biological link between that and changes to inflammatory pathways.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.10.21256931v1.full.pdf

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35700362/

>>1602

>https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/psilocybin-in-10mg-or-25mg-doses-has-no-short-or-long-term-detrimental-effects-in-healthy-people

That was not a very good study. Each group only had 30 people in it(well Placebo had 29) and 'Long term' was only 29 days for cognitive tests and 85 days for social and emotional tests.

Also there were negative effects in the study.

>In total, 511 TEAEs were reported during the 12-week study: 217 in the 25 mg psilocybin arm (reported by 29 (96.7%) participants), 203 in the 10 mg psilocybin arm (reported by 29 (96.7%) participants) and 91 in the placebo arm (reported by 26 (89.7%) participants). Of these, 208, 188 and 77 were deemed by the investigator to be potentially related to study treatment in the 25 mg, 10 mg and placebo arms, respectively.

There is a table of these medical issues in the study(well their is a link to the study in the link that you posted which was not actually the study but another site talking about it).

So I really would not go so far as to say that this has less averse effects that the traditional treatment for depression. Particularly not non-drug related treatment like meditation and therapy.

I already addressed alcohol and as I said at the time, I don't think being hung over is a bad thing, it's an inbuilt system to deter people from drinking too much.

>>1603
>67% of all TEAEs started and resolved on the day of administration. There were no serious TEAEs, and none led to study withdrawal.

>I really would not go so far as to say that this has less averse effects that the traditional treatment for depression
This table does not say "horribly dangerous" to me
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02698811211064720#table2-02698811211064720
The highest in event # being
>Hallucination, visual
Wow, magic mushroom cause visual hallucinations. Didn't know that. Very, very dangerous

>Particularly not non-drug related treatment like meditation and therapy.
Not comparable to drug treatments.

Post edited on 17th Dec 2022, 6:38pm

>>1604
Well it was clearly concerning enough for the effected person to seek medical treatment, as that is what TEAE is.
There are others like headaches, derepression, memory loss etc. And this is a study of 60(for both DMT groups) over a relatively short period of time, as an anti-depressant you would be giving it to thousands(if not millions) of people over the course of years.

>>1605
I don't belive that's the definition of TEAE they're using
>Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were defined as any AEs with an onset on or after the dose of study drug, or any pre-existing condition that worsened on or after the dose of study drug.
Treatment here doesn't mean they sought treatment because of symptom, but the symptom was a result of treatment (treatment here being the drug)

Also memory impairment is 1/30 on the 10mg group, but 0 in the 25mg, so I don't think you can draw much from that. If you tested alcohol, it'd probably be higher.

Also I don't think anyone is advocating handing out these things as first-line treatment for anything. The original point you made is that these drugs are a net harm to society and should not be tolerated. I think the linked body of studies show 2 things:

1) It's not immediately obvious that they're harmful, either to yourself or to society. At a high enough dosage sure anything is harmful, but in moderation it's a bit murky. At low doses when used correctly it might even have positives. So in this aspect they can't be blanket demonized.

2) They are not any worse than alcohol. If you are accepting of alcohol but dismissive of these drugs, then that would seem to be an untenable position. If would at least make more sense if you are against all mind-altering substances altogether, including alcohol.

But either way the point of the study isn't to single out one as demonstrably showing anything, but to indicate that there isn't as obvious a detrimental effect as you seem to think. If we did a study comparing ingestion of cyanide, we'd see effects easily. If we did a study with ingestion of lead, the effects are more slow-onset and insidious, you'd need to look at a larger timespan, but eventually you'd see stuff there too. If you did ingestion of placebo, you'd find only spurious correlations. The question is where do alcohol and other drugs lie on that spectrum, and at what point is it reasonable to demonize them? And even if there is a harm, you have to break it down by societal harm vs harm to yourself.

Post edited on 17th Dec 2022, 6:56pm

>>1604
>not comparable to drug treatments
No, they are better. Most depressed people do not need anti-depression, doctors give them away far too liberally. The underlying causes of that depression should be looked into as well as any lifestyle problems like poor diet, lack of excersise, poor sleeping patterns etc, as well as this there should be therapy of course. If you have addressed all of that and still there is no improvement then yes, then anti-depression should be considered.

If you don't address the root causes of the issue all you are doing is putting out fires when they appear and waiting for the next one to appear afterwards.

>>1607
If you're comparing the side-effects of drugs used as anti-depressants, non-drug treatment is irrelevant.

>>1606
>Treatment here doesn't mean they sought treatment because of symptom
Yeah, I don't think too many people would seek treatment for having a "euphoric mood", which is also considered an adverse event.

>>1606
Even so it's literally under the title 'adverse effects' they clearly see it as such.

But as I said there are other maladies in that table.

>Headache15 (50.0)169 (30.0)125 (17.2)5
> Fatigue8 (26.7)89 (30.0)103 (10.3)3
> Emotional disorder5 (16.7)62 (6.7)200
>Psychiatric disorders26 (86.7)8025 (83.3)7910 (34.5)19

>Substance-induced psychotic disorder1 (3.3)b10000

As I said, we are talking very small sample sizes here, even if 1 person had memory problems, that could still be significant or yes it could be an outlier.

Post edited on 17th Dec 2022, 6:54pm

>>1609
Ohh and not only are they small samples but over short periods and in controlled environments.

>>1609
Reread edited version of >>1606.

>>1611

>1) It's not immediately obvious that they're harmful, either to yourself or to society. At a high enough dosage sure anything is harmful, but in moderation it's a bit murky. At low doses when used correctly it might even have positives. So in this aspect they can't be blanket demonized.

Even in these small studies they show issues and potential issues. It's really far too soon to say that they should be allowed at all. More research would haev to be done and then comparisons would have to be made with existing treatments.

>2) They are not any worse than alcohol. If you are accepting of alcohol but dismissive of these drugs, then that would seem to be an untenable position. If would at least make more sense if you are against all mind-altering substances altogether, including alcohol.

As I said already, I already addressed alcohol, you keep ignoring that and coming back to this.

>But either way the point of the study isn't to single out one as demonstrably showing anything, but to indicate that there isn't as obvious a detrimental effect as you seem to think.

It is showing detrimental effects.

>The question is where do alcohol and other drugs lie on that spectrum, and at what point is it reasonable to demonize them? And even if there is a harm, you have to break it down by societal harm vs harm to yourself.

It's much harder to ban something after legalising it than to never legalise it in the first place. ALOT of research would need to be done on this before allowing it lest we end up in situations like in the US where legalisation of Marijuana has caused sharp increases in psychiatric issues.

They clearly are having negative impacts on society as well, even if it's simply culturally. I don't think anybody could deny that drug posters are terrible or that many of the most insane and annoying people are people that use them. A huge number of the issues that are effecting modern western society could easily be attribute to them.
Yet, these issues have arisen after wide spread drug use but not during times of alcohol use and not in Japan, a nation of alcohol use. As I said in the other thread, Japan, a nation of alcohol use tends to make much better media as well as opposed to the modern West which is now an entity of drug use.

>>1612
>Even in these small studies they show issues and potential issues
You go back and forth between saying the positive effects can be dismissed because it's a small study, and the negative effects shouldn't be dismissed even though it's a small study.

>I already addressed alcohol
By hand-waving the issue, making baseless claims about it being less unhealthy, and appealing to cultural norms.

>even if it's simply culturally. I don't think anybody could deny that drug posters are terrible or that many of the most insane and annoying people are people that use them
This is your real problem with "drugs". Everything else is window dressing.

>>1613
I never denied them, I never said it would not work as an anti-depression. As I said, more research needs to be done to find out how serious these negative impacts are, how much could be attributed to it being a small study and then it needs to be compared to existing treatments.

If that's the way you see it but the point is I did address it. I keep saying as I said and that is annoying as it shows that you are not really reading what I actually write. But again. As I said, even if it is as bad as other substances, that does not mean that we should just open the flood gates and these other substances should then be legalised as well, that just adds more issues.
Alcohol has been with us for so long and is so engrained into our culture that the idea of banning it is simply unfeasible, we even have trouble banning cigarettes and there is no doubt about the health impacts they have.
I never said alcohol was healthy, there is an argument about whether it is more or less healthy but I never denied that it is unhealthy.
But, it is also a known evil.

That alone is a big issues but I have other issues that I already talked about as well.

tobacco societies > alcohol societies > psychedelic and stimulant societies > weed societies

had to be said

>>1626
Weed truly is awful.