• Psychedelics not linked to mental health problems or suicidal behavior (Population study of 130,000
    55 replies, posted
[QUOTE]"A recent large population study of 130,000 adults in the United States failed to find evidence for a link between psychedelic use (lysergic acid diethylamide, psilocybin or mescaline) and mental health problems. Using a new data set consisting of 135,095 randomly selected United States adults, including 19,299 psychedelic users, we examine the associations between psychedelic use and mental health. After adjusting for sociodemographics, other drug use and childhood depression, we found no significant associations between lifetime use of psychedelics and increased likelihood of past year serious psychological distress, mental health treatment, suicidal thoughts, suicidal plans and suicide attempt, depression and anxiety. We failed to find evidence that psychedelic use is an independent risk factor for mental health problems. Psychedelics are not known to harm the brain or other body organs or to cause addiction or compulsive use; serious adverse events involving psychedelics are extremely rare. Overall, it is difficult to see how prohibition of psychedelics can be justified as a public health measure. The study went on to point out that, “drug abuse experts consistently rank LSD and/or psilocybin mushrooms as much less harmful to the individual user and to society compared to alcohol and other controlled substances.” [quote]"There may have been a political rather than public health rationale behind the criminalization of psychedelic users. It is deeply troubling to read an interview with John Ehrlichman, advisor to US President Richard Nixon, in which he explains that the War on Drugs was ‘really about’ hurting ‘the antiwar Left, and black people’, and openly admits, ‘Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did’" (Baum, 2012) [/quote][/QUOTE] Main Source: [URL="http://www.emmasofia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Psychedelics-not-linked-to-mental-health-problems-or-suicidal-behavior.pdf?115a76"]Journal of Psychopharmacology[/URL] Other Source: [URL]http://thefreethoughtproject.com/study-shows-psychedelic-drugs-bad-mental-health-alcohol/#zslf8gEKFcHT1vwe.99[/URL]
Hasn't it been known that mushrooms and LSD are relatively safe drugs? Cool to hear, though, though it probably won't affect the stigma surrounding them at all :v:
Cases of de-realization and HPPD do happen, though. But not in the frequency that people usually think, i'd say.
Mushrooms where an amazing experience for me personally, helped against social anxiety as well! Lack of education is where the real danger is, I've heard about folks doing psychies on rooftops and crazy shit like that :/
I'm pretty confident mushrooms are the greatest thing on Earth, it's unfortunate there's been no action to rectify the harsh bans placed on psychedelics during a period of time in which the government was guilty of making MANY decisions with the sole intent of harming innocent citizens. I mean, really, there's no other substance on Earth that can REALLY let you appreciate just how fantastic Stevie Wonder is.
That's a pretty high sample of people.
130,000 is quite the sample group. I don't think I've seen numbers that high before. :v:
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;48879183]130,000 is quite the sample group. I don't think I've seen numbers that high before. :v:[/QUOTE] I doubt it's hard to find people who want to take some free shooms.
[QUOTE=The fox;48879028]Cases of de-realization and HPPD do happen, though. But not in the frequency that people usually think, i'd say.[/QUOTE] I usually get six months of HPPD after a heavy trip, but it's only really pronounced when smoking greens or when I'm sleep deprived. It's kind of pretty so I don't mind but I can understand that some might find it scary if they mentally connect it to some bad tripping experience. Others might believe that a fried visual perception must mean their psyche is also permanently fried to some extend, which is a scary thought if you don't understand the mechanics of the drugs. I don't think psychedelic stigma is going anywhere, no matter how safe medical trials can lament it. These are some very powerful drugs that some percentage of users will inevitably have a bad response to, this is known and will make any sane person think twice before trying them.
I swear we need another psychedelic revival. Many of these drugs are great, but due to them being illegal there has been countless knock offs, many of which are directly linked to psychotic diseases and even total frying of personality. Then the anti-drug people use these results to keep it illegal, feeding into public fears. LSD and Shrooms in their original and pure forms are no where near as bad as the anti-drug says it is. Hell, some sources say they're even safer than weed. Anyway we look at the situation, these drugs need to be legal. Definitely some sort of age restrictions (what good they will do, but they will help), but legalization will allow manufacturers with proper permits to create acid, and with proper regulations we can choose the intensity we want from a chart, and they will drop the liquid right there in the store. I would say people should take a quick psychologist visit to make sure the acid won't intensify some underlying medical condition.
Every time I tell some of my friends that LSD is incredible and that it's one of the safest drugs you can possible take they look at my like I'm some fucking drugged out psycho and that I'm absolutely crazy and just shut me down without doing ANY research of themselves. This includes people who nightly destroy their livers with alcohol, smoke shit tons of weed, and have tried shrooms before but they're like "hurr LSD is synthetic [sp]actually it's only semi-synthetic[/sp] so its bad for you, you're a bad person if you try it". It's absolutely amazing to me how adamant people can be about something without A. experiencing it themselves or B. Researching it AT ALL.
[QUOTE=Karmah;48879182]That's a pretty high sample of people.[/QUOTE] In a counter-logical perspective, it makes sense to make a massive sample. You got less critics implying the results might be skewed from not enough people being sampled. We're talking the population of a small city. Your margin of error is going to be pretty damn small.
[QUOTE=kaskade700;48879224]I don't think psychedelic stigma is going anywhere[/QUOTE] i'm not sure about that, i think that by the time i am 50 there will be quite a few countries where psychedelics have been legalized.
[QUOTE=Kylel999;48879017]Hasn't it been known that mushrooms and LSD are relatively safe drugs? Cool to hear, though, though it probably won't affect the stigma surrounding them at all :v:[/QUOTE] I dunno about shrooms, but I've heard that LSD is actually pretty benign, provided you don't have a pre-existing mental problem.
Frankly I'm not sure completely legalizing psychedelics is good either. People already drive drunk so I'd be concerned about that especially considering its even easier to hide in the car. [some people are caught with alcohol bottles in the front seat] Anyway, wasn't there a study linking weed to schizophrenia? It's like one study comes out and "ooohhh its gotta be legalized" oy, I'm not completely discrediting this but more than 1 study has to be done, prior ones seemed to indicate links if I remember correctly.
[quote]After adjusting for sociodemographics, other drug use and childhood depression[/quote] big red flag. "adjusting for" can sometimes mask the effect you're trying to measure.
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48879607]Frankly I'm not sure completely legalizing psychedelics is good either. People already drive drunk so I'd be concerned about that especially considering its even easier to hide in the car. [some people are caught with alcohol bottles in the front seat] Anyway, wasn't there a study linking weed to schizophrenia? It's like one study comes out and "ooohhh its gotta be legalized" oy, I'm not completely discrediting this but more than 1 study has to be done, prior ones seemed to indicate links if I remember correctly.[/QUOTE] I think there was a study, but the fact that the chances are nearly non-existent doesn't hurt the cause one bit.
I skimmed the study, I can see two huge problems in just the first paragraph in the methodology section: [quote]The annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) collects data on substance use and mental health from a random sample representative of the US civilian [b]non-institutionalized population[/b] ([url]http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh.htm[/url]). We pooled data from respondents aged 18 years and over from survey years 2008–2011. Half of year 2008, earlier survey years and younger respondents were not pooled due to questionnaire differences (including no questions on suicidal behavior). The response rate was 78%. In addition, approximately 10% of participants were excluded from the public use data file, either because of excessive missing data on drug use or because they were excluded at random in order to increase anonymity. The sample consisted of 135,095 respondents, of whom 19,299 (13.6% weighted) [b]reported[/b] lifetime use of a psychedelic substance. Our previous study examined NSDUH years 2001–2004 (Krebs and Johansen, 2013b).[/quote] They're excluding institutionalized people, i.e. the people with statistically the most serious mental health problems. Do psychedelics fuck people up enough that they're institutionalized? This study cannot tell us. And it's also based on self-report data rather than direct observation. There's so many ways this can distort the actual reality, I don't need to go into detail on why. [editline]11th October 2015[/editline] [quote]The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: TSK is board leader and PØJ is a board member of EmmaSofia, a nonprofit organization based in Oslo, Norway, working to increase access to quality-controlled MDMA and psychedelics ( [url]www.emmasofia.org[/url]). PØJ is also a board member of the Association for a Humane Drug Policy, Oslo, Norway ([url]www.fhn.no[/url]).[/quote] something to keep in mind.
[QUOTE=kurgan;48879687]I skimmed the study, I can see two huge problems in just the first paragraph in the methodology section: They're excluding institutionalized people, i.e. the people with statistically the most serious mental health problems. Do psychedelics fuck people up enough that they're institutionalized? This study cannot tell us. [b]And it's also based on self-report data rather than direct observation. There's so many ways this can distort the actual reality, I don't need to go into detail on why.[/b][/QUOTE] self-report data is considered a source of random measurement error, not systematic. as such it doesn't affect results in any significant manner; random measurement error almost always measures out to a net effect of zero both theoretically and in practice. so while your first point of missing the institutionalized population is a significant source of potential systematic measurement error, the idea that it's self report will affect results is incorrect.
[QUOTE=The fox;48879028]Cases of de-realization and HPPD do happen, though. But not in the frequency that people usually think, i'd say.[/QUOTE] I have hppd and it's not that bad, just visual weirdness and lots of visual snow. More serious than de-realization is psychosis as some people push their minds way too far and break, hiding knives from your friends is not fun.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;48879743]self-report data is considered a source of random measurement error, not systematic. as such it doesn't affect results in any significant manner; random measurement error almost always measures out to a net effect of zero both theoretically and in practice. so while your first point of missing the institutionalized population is a significant source of potential systematic measurement error, the idea that it's self report will affect results is incorrect.[/QUOTE] have you got a source on that? it's prima facie incredible that self-reports could be purely a source of random error in general -- it's a huge problem in things like political surveys, obesity studies and so on. social desirability bias is a thing, and it's pretty reasonable to expect it to occur in a study on drug use. it's certainly a [i]massive[/i] problem in studies of mental health ... and this study is combining the two [editline]11th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=RAG Frag;48879745]I have hppd and it's not that bad, just visual weirdness and lots of visual snow. More serious than de-realization is psychosis as some people push their minds way too far and break, hiding knives from your friends is not fun.[/QUOTE] also note that psychosis was excluded from this study: [quote] The remaining mental health indicators from our previous study, such as psychosis symptoms, were not available in this data set. [/quote] They did a previous study that claimed to show no link between psychedelics and psychosis -- dunno if legit
such a shame because people assumed so with Brian Wilson, and then he was taken under psychiatric care and that was what truly messed him up psychologically :/
[QUOTE=kurgan;48879777] They did a previous study that claimed to show no link between psychedelics and psychosis -- dunno if legit[/QUOTE] I'm not great with statistics so correct me if I'm wrong but I just don't see a self reported population study to be the best method for measuring accute psychosis, most of the evidence for there being a link is anecdotal but there surely there seems to be enough of it to say that there is a link. [url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenkotler/2015/03/11/are-psychedelics-the-wonder-drug-weve-been-waiting-for/]I'm asssuming this is the other study... or is it the same study?[/url] Only thing I could find.
really wish the media would be a little more selective when reporting on new research. journalists with a vested interest in grabbing clicks and eyeballs obviously don't have the filter or the literacy to determine how legitimate a study is, and instead of showing what most studies actually mean (could-bes, might-bes, etc) they pretend like each new shitty paper is decisive and conclusive proof. it's dangerous and irresponsible, since it leads people into the false sense that they're basing their choices on empirical data, when in reality they're throwing themselves at the mercy of what could essentially be trash science. this isn't me weighing in on this specific study btw, just airing my grumpiness over how shitty journalists are at reporting on science.
[QUOTE=pentium;48879460]In a counter-logical perspective, it makes sense to make a massive sample. You got less critics implying the results might be skewed from not enough people being sampled. We're talking the population of a small city. Your margin of error is going to be pretty damn small.[/QUOTE] Duh, that's research methods/statistics 101 right there.
[QUOTE=kurgan;48879777]have you got a source on that? it's prima facie incredible that self-reports could be purely a source of random error in general -- it's a huge problem in things like political surveys, obesity studies and so on. social desirability bias is a thing, and it's pretty reasonable to expect it to occur in a study on drug use. it's certainly a [i]massive[/i] problem in studies of mental health ... and this study is combining the two [editline]11th October 2015[/editline] [/QUOTE] Every psychology undergraduate knows about social desirability bias so don't you think it's foolish to assume that they didn't think about that?
[QUOTE=The Saiko;48880853]Every psychology undergraduate knows about social desirability bias so don't you think it's foolish to assume that they didn't think about that?[/QUOTE] Actually no, because that's a fundamental assumption you should never make and instead always scrutinize.
[QUOTE=The Saiko;48880853]don't you think it's foolish to assume that they didn't think about that?[/QUOTE] nope! they declared a conflict of interest -- they are part of an organization that benefits from the results coming out the way they did. that means we shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt on anything at all.
I'll confess right away that I didn't read the article so I'm not going to make any claims either way if the study is bunk or not BUT A sample size of 130,000 is impressive, very impressive. But anyone who's taken an intro to stats class knows that sample size is redundant beyond a point and even with 130,000 people, if your methodology is crap, your results are going to be crap too, regardless of how small your margin of error is (if your margin of error lies entirely in the realm of "wrong"...). So that's all I'm saying, is the 130,000 sample size is pretty sensationalist. No opinion on the conclusion itself.
yes, the extra zeroes are really more like exclamation points, rather than anything particularly impactful.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.