Johns Hopkins University Scientists Suggest Reclassification of Psilocybin Mushrooms

TrippyHippy said:
Fine. Whatever. I have to know, what is the purpose of you having two accounts though?
Click to expand...
mamy people have socks here -why does it matter to you?

This was such a study where double blind was used, and it was necessary to do so.
Click to expand...
because you say so?

Yes, and that was taken into account in these trials. It is possible to maintain statistical accuracy within a small pool of subjects if proper precautions are made. I happen to trust the method established neuroscientists took. Not to mention there are many illuminating studies saying the same thing that were done before psychedelics were put on schedule 1, and therefore had a far bigger pool of subjects.
Click to expand...
what is "statistical accuracy?" and no "proper precautions" have nothing to do with sample sizes.

Generally the larger the sample the standard deviation of the means decreases; and as the sample size decreases, the standard deviation of the sample means increases. I have no idea what you are trying to convey by these terms you use

In any case, it's still far more reliable than your anecdotal story.
Click to expand...
again you don't understand that anecdotals are not to be dismisses as unscientific simply because thy haven't gone thru clinical trials.
There are ALL KINDS of studies that use long terms field anecdotals where it's impossible to replicate in a clinical situation

I have already posted a very comprehensive study done specifically on the potential for abuse with these drugs. Of which they found none. There are others, if you wish to seek them out. Them, plus the more extensive studies done in the 50s and 60s, coupled with national survey data indicating frequency of use among psychedelic users makes a decently strong case. A far stronger case than for the argument they do create dependency in users. So far all you have for me are extremely dubious stories from your high school days. Forgive me if I don't exactly consider that iron-clad evidence. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
what kind of abuse was looked for? again we are not (obviously)talking physical addiction- we are talking about habituation or psychological dependency. and more importantly we are discussing long term use. 3 years in my case.
I've describes as accurately as possible why that habituation was setup. you dismiss it as a lie.
for a person advocating the use of psychedelic you don't have much of an open mind .

You clearly have no clue as to long term field studies, or incomplete data that can rely on anecdotals.

Psychology has changed greatly since the 50's with much more emphasis on behaviorism, then psychoanalysis.
I'm not saying which is more apropos here. Probably both have worth.

But as far as I know no one has studied the long terms continuous use of psychs , and simply talking about neuroreceptors in the short run isn't enough to make them as available as Ambien without more research on long term use

Clearly more research on long term use is needed here before you jump to a 4.
Which is why I said keep it a 2 for the time being so it's at least available ( as opposed to 1) for more then a few experimental studies, afterall you are talking about 100,00o's of Rx, if you simply go right to a 4

For a person with an open mind towards psychedelics, your perspective is rigid
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
I used to buy sheets for $80 and sell for 3 bucks a hit.
I always had pocketfuls of money.

I don't know how many hits I did. Maybe 35-50.

I used to miss normalcy and didn't get normal by tripping more. That is bullshit. The way to get normal was to clean out.
I ran with a large crowd, we all did acid and drank alcohol and smoked weed and opium.

The last time I tripped was in 1985, I had stopped drinking 2 .5 years before.

Neither me nor any of my crowd ever felt addicted to acid.
Your anecdotal tale just proves you are a retard.
Click to expand...
any drug requires staying clean to "get normal"
That's is not the point here. we're talking about habituation,and the long term effects
and how to maintain functionality over time with continuous use
 
anatta said:
mamy people have socks here -why does it matter to you?

because you say so?

what is "statistical accuracy?" and no "proper precautions" have nothing to do with sample sizes.

Generally the larger the sample the standard deviation of the means decreases; and as the sample size decreases, the standard deviation of the sample means increases. I have no idea what you are trying to convey by these terms you use


again you don't understand that anecdotals are not to be dismisses as unscientific simply because thy haven't gone thru clinical trials.
There are ALL KINDS of studies that use long terms field anecdotals where it's impossible to replicate in a clinical situation


what kind of abuse was looked for? again we are not (obviously)talking physical addiction- we are talking about habituation or psychological dependency. and more importantly we are discussing long term use. 3 years in my case.
I've describes as accurately as possible why that habituation was setup. you dismiss it as a lie.
for a person advocating the use of psychedelic you don't have much of an open mind .

You clearly have no clue as to long term field studies, or incomplete data that can rely on anecdotals.

Psychology has changed greatly since the 50's with much more emphasis on behaviorism, then psychoanalysis.
I'm not saying which is more apropos here. Probably both have worth.

But as far as I know no one has studied the long terms continuous use of psychs , and simply talking about neuroreceptors in the short run isn't enough to make them as available as Ambien without more research on long term use

Clearly more research on long term use is needed here before you jump to a 4.
Which is why I said keep it a 2 for the time being so it's at least available ( as opposed to 1) for more then a few experimental studies, afterall you are talking about 100,00o's of Rx, if you simply go right to a 4

For a person with an open mind towards psychedelics, your perspective is rigid
Click to expand...


what the fuck is wrong with you?

you're here talking shit every single time I stop by.....???
 
anatta said:
any drug requires staying clean to "get normal"
That's is not the point here. we're talking about habituation,and the long term effects
and how to maintain functionality over time with continuous use
Click to expand...

No, you are talking about how to maintain functionality with continuous use, because you are a freak.
Normal people self regulate the use instead.
 
Rune said:
No, you are talking about how to maintain functionality with continuous use, because you are a freak.
Normal people self regulate the use instead.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. this was like high school - I wouldn't recommend it to anyone..it just sort of happened
WTF did I know about acid in 1968?
I had pockets full of tabs and munched out

But the question is what effects are there by long term usage?
which is why a schedule 4 is not appropriate until we get more long term data
 
TrippyHippy said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/science/magic-mushrooms-psilocybin-scheduleiv.html

Looks like the alternative medicine wave isn't stopping at marijuana. The age of benzos, painkillers, and SSRIs is coming to a close, it seems.

What's more interesting about the changing winds on psychedelics drugs is many clinical trials are suggesting they could be a miracle treatment for addiction. Something to consider in the midst of an opioid crisis getting worse by the day. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Someone said that they're also good for weight loss; because the dragon guarding the refrigerator won't let anyone get near it. :D
 
I had friends who used to use window pane, back in the early 70's; but stopped because it started being cut with something that was causing stomach cramps.

Another friend used to sell mescaline caps.

Everyone called it "The Brown High".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top