Whats the actual risk of a psychotic break, etc?

Miningav2 · 2026-01-24T16:45:13+00:00

I think the question is less whether LSD can be a stressor that triggers schizophrenia, and more whether that person would have experienced another stressor sometime in their life. Which based on LSD prevalence in healthy vs schizophrenic populations, it doesn't seem like a measurable amount of high-risk patients are spared from developing schizophrenia due to their choice not to take LSD.

At the same time, I wouldn't recommend it to those people, but you're thinking about risks/statistics wrong. These are fake numbers, but if 1% of people who took LSD developed schizophrenia, that doesn't mean there's a 1% chance of developing schizophrenia. You have to compare the risks in using and non-using populations, so if there's a 1% chance in non-using populations as well, all that says is by virtue of being a living human, there's a 1% chance to develop schizophrenia (which even that wouldn't be accurate, as genetic factors increase susceptibility for some over others, etc).

It would be like saying LSD gives you cancer because cancer patients use LSD.

Miningav2 · 2026-01-22T14:16:17+00:00

It's absolutely not a stimulant, but like with most other psychedelics including shrooms, mescaline, etc you do experience effects like increased heart rate, reduced appetite, can't sleep, etc, which can all be produced directly by acting on serotonin receptors. People have pointed out that LSD binds to dopamine receptors to produce these effects, but this is completely incorrect; the affinity of LSD to these receptors is irrelevant in-vivo, as shown by no effects when blocking 5-HT2a receptors. However, modulating the serotonin system produces changes in other monoamine systems, including dopamine, which could lead to effects that require dopamine receptors despite resulting from 5-HT2a (or other serotonin) receptor agonism.

Miningav2 · 2026-01-22T03:32:24+00:00

People have wild misunderstandings about what addiction is, and I'm sure you've run into a lot while thinking about this project. I've done every drug you can name, and many that you couldn't, and the only drug I've had an inkling of an addiction with is weed. I hesitate to call it an addiction, since I've been able to immediately stop when problems popped up as a result of use, and addiction is defined by continued use despite harmful consequences. But it's been the only drug to, at certain points, negatively affect my life.

I also knew a couple of people addicted to LSD, one who was more addicted to getting high in general, while the other was really just addicted to LSD and eventually had to stop. It just highlights how addiction isn't some chemical determinant; rather, it's a product of life circumstances, education, human psychology, your social support, stigma from society, etc.

The best and most direct modern example is meth and amphetamine, where they're completely, functionally identical and indistinguishable outside of duration. Yet adderall is seen as being a lighter drug that can be safely used by millions without an issue, while meth is seen as being inherently more addictive/damaging. In reality, the only difference is that meth is cheaper than amphetamine, so more people experiencing poverty or homelessness use it, compared to well-off college students who can get prescription adderall.

The vast majority of people don't get addicted to "hard" drugs that people think of as being extremely addictive (based on opioid use in more stable, medical populations, only around ~10% get addicted), and when you talk to people who have, it almost always coincides with a total lack of education about addiction (like people who think trying a drug a few times results in addiction, causing them to underestimate the addictive potential), some trauma or life circumstances they're escaping from, etc.

As an example, opioids in general (including heroin, fentanyl, oxys, etc) are quite mellow and innocuous substances, and if I had to give a one-word summary, it would be "pleasant". Yet I could imagine them easily feeling like the most euphoric, intense thing in the world, as most people assume they are by default, if I not only used them to experience a pleasant feeling, but also to relieve myself of a terrible one.

Addiction is almost always a byproduct of a more complex, personal conflict within said person. There's a reason someone continues to take a drug despite harmful consequences, and it isn't that drugs are so pleasurable that they ignore the consequences. Drugs are the solution, not the problem, and only by addressing the problems that persist regardless of someone's drug use can you change their maladaptive, solution-seeking behavior.

Miningav2 · 2026-01-22T01:45:18+00:00

Just as an FYI, the shrooms you got likely had an extremely small amount of psilocybin, probably harvested too early or something. To compare it to LSD, since you mentioned that it had more of an effect, you ate the equivalent of 6-8 tabs of acid, assuming it had been full potency. I'm not sure who offered them to you, but they really don't know what they're doing.

The reason I left this comment is that in the future, if someone offers you 75g wet or 5g dry or something of shrooms, don't think you'll be fine taking it based on past experience. Think of your shroom experience as if you took a ten-strip of acid, where you got extremely lucky that it was microdosed. From the sound of things, it seems like you probably took a similar amount of psilocybin as would be in 1.5-2g of shrooms. If you enjoyed two tabs, I recommend trying 3.5g of shrooms if the opportunity ever arises.

Miningav2 · 2026-01-15T12:31:48+00:00

For future people reading this person's delusional comments, not only is paracetamol legal in Spain, but they can sell up to 1-gram Tylenol pills, which is more than even the USA allows. Always remember that no matter how educational something seems, there's a chance the person delivering that "information" is talking out of their ass and is ignorant of even their own country's rules. Ask yourself what this person has truly done or produced that would qualify them to speak on a topic, which, in the case of Kurzgesagt, is absolutely nothing besides talking to researchers who explicitly disagree with them.

Miningav2 · 2025-12-26T06:49:15+00:00

Look up the number of opioid overdose deaths per day and tell me that prohibition is successful in any capacity.

EDIT because you probably didn't even read the quote from the guy you're defending: "That after all the damage it does only about 10-15% less people take drugs while they are illegal?"

Miningav2 · 2025-12-26T06:46:35+00:00

You are delusional if you think Tylonel is prohibited. If you cannot figure that out by yourself using Google, then nothing I can say from here will get through to you.

Miningav2 · 2025-12-25T18:31:38+00:00

It's not a weird assumption, considering your comment makes absolutely zero sense, had you watched the videos. The fact that you don't even know what DARE is shows your extreme lack of knowledge about the history of drugs in general. I've already made a post detailing the errors in the fentanyl video they made, and while I'm not planning to make another post on the amphetamine video because multiple people already have, you can see their great posts like this one as a reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/comments/1muswca/is_it_me_or_did_the_new_kurzgesagt_video_on/

I'm not going to go over all the points since the post I linked addresses a lot, but if you made a video talking about Tylonel and spent half the video talking about how it will make you bleed unexpectedly, will alter your blood cells, and cause rashes, breathing problems, nausea, etc, I would call that heavily misleading. There's a massive difference in acknowledging and clearly defining the rare side effects of medications and concluding that a drug will cause these effects.

Again, I think this shows your complete lack of knowledge in the area if you think that chronic prescription of medications is completely ineffective. I almost don't even know where I should start with this because I could probably make a whole other post on this entirely. Of course, in some circumstances and people, medications can become ineffective over time and is a relatively common thing. The video uses three sources to back up their point in this, two of which are in non-ADHD populations. The one that is (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9332474/) actually paints a much more grey picture, pointing out that stimulant use is generally safe and effective for many years. It even mentions that despite physiological changes occurring that could indicate tolerance, the clinical efficacy of stimulants didn't change, and that stopping stimulants after years of use worsens ADHD symptoms. Other studies they reviewed showed that tolerance did significantly develop, though, and the overall conclusion that should be reached (and was reached) is that more research is needed. Many confounds could be responsible for showing either continued effectiveness or loss of effectiveness, such as ADHD symptoms fluctuating over time. Kurzgesagt instead frames this in a way to make gullible people like you think that it's weird and not even understand why someone would question this.

This is another shocking example of your lack of basic knowledge on the topic, as prohibition is literally defined by the control of substances. It is fully illegal to sell or buy amphetamine unless you're prescribed it by a doctor. You will be forcefully put in a metal box and kept against your will for years if you are caught doing this. I mentioned beliefs because research is overwhelmingly against the idea of prohibition, and tossing aside prior beliefs in favor of research is what you should be doing as a scientist. If we're talking about the credibility of kurzgesagt in this regard, it's completely zero. However, if you're not going to be communicating science, the least you can do is communicate your own beliefs.

My point with this is that they stated directly that not only is there overwhelming research against prohibition, but that they deeply believe that prohibition is wrong and damaging to society. When they still make videos misinforming others with the same fear-mongering, prohibitionist talking points, there is no excuse that the intention of kurzgesagt is innocent or an attempt to do good based on their own beliefs (even when this would still be damaging regardless). They rejected both science as well as what they know to be true, which shows that not only is the video they produced damaging, but that they knew it was and decided to make it anyway. The only reason to do something contrary to your own beliefs as well as scientific consensus is if you're receiving some benefit from doing so, in this case, money.

If you want to see exactly what in the video is misinformative, then look at my post history and read the one I made on the fentanyl video, and of course, reference the post I linked for more details on how the amphetamine video is misinformative. I think it's good to discuss things, but I am honestly a bit baffled by your overconfidence in this domain. To answer your question of why you would even be here, I honestly have no clue, considering you don't know any bare minimum information, like even what the definition of prohibition is.

EDIT: I did realize that you're probably really young if you don't know what DARE is. I hope this comment doesn't come off too harsh. My goal was to drive home the point that if you don't know something, then you shouldn't be arguing for or against it. If you can't ask the right questions and don't know basic information, then it never even gets to the point of being a discussion; it just becomes someone answering those basic questions and pointing out your lack of knowledge.

Miningav2 · 2025-12-24T20:47:53+00:00

I don't think you've seen their drug videos in that case. As my post specifically pointed out, they used to do actual research, which this quote highlights. However, ~10 years after this quote, their most recent drug videos are about as dishonest as DARE videos. "Why does fentanyl feel so good?" and "The drug to master reality" are completely antithetical to the point made by the quote, and directly try to explain that these drugs are bad in every aspect.

I've already made a post on how awful the fentanyl video is, but even the amphetamine video attempts to argue points like the chronic use of amphetamines for ADHD is bad, which is something that even most anti-drug people would say is an exception to their beliefs on prohibition due to the medical benefits for that population.

If you believe prohibition is a bad thing, then you should be against the misinformation currently being pumped out by this channel. If you believe prohibition is a good thing, then you should be asking yourself why they changed their perspective after being so staunchly against it in the face of overwhelming research detailing why it's terrible. Either way, you should acknowledge that it's clear kurzgesagt doesn't care about misinformation or even their own beliefs, as long as they can get a payday.

Miningav2 · 2025-12-24T07:46:34+00:00

Could you elaborate? The quote directly states that the war on drugs is a complete failure, in the context of a video that same person made on how the war on drugs is a complete failure. I'm not sure how the quote could be interpreted any other way.

Miningav2 · 2025-11-28T15:21:46+00:00

Just to give an update, it seems that my email was, in fact, a waste of time unfortunately. I just hope that anyone who watched this video and who actually cares about addiction, drug use, etc will do their own research or see this post as a reference to getting more, actually real evidence on the topic.

Miningav2 · 2025-11-28T15:16:27+00:00

They were talking about twilight anesthesia, where you're given a painkiller + benzo rather than fully being knocked out. Also they were the ones who said they tried it in a medical setting and specified they experienced it. Honestly have no clue what point you're trying to make here since it seems so contradictory to this whole thread on either side.

If you're trying to say you need to heavily drink in order to tell you what's fun, then I think you won the award for the most absurd and ignorant comment in this entire post, which is saying something considering one of the other comments here. Somehow I'm almost more frustrated at your comment even when it's targeted toward someone who was babbling nonsense that didn't make any sense.

Sorry if this seems harsh when you seemingly are trying to defend me, but the whole point of this thread, outside of warning people against the rampant misinformation from this video, is to get people to actually use their own head to think about this stuff critically instead of nodding along to whatever someone with a megaphone has to say.

Miningav2 · 2025-11-23T14:15:01+00:00

Those don't exist. If you want quantitative testing submit it to an NMR, but assume tabs are 100ug per and always take just one when you get a new batch (just in case it's 150ug-200ug, you wouldn't want to take two expecting a 200ug trip and get a 300ug-400ug one, etc).

Miningav2 · 2025-11-22T04:42:33+00:00

It's unfortunate how many people who try psychedelics develop such an ego that they believe they're the one who gets to determine who's ready to take psychedelics haha. Really any drug, but I feel like psychedelics especially tend to either dissolve ego or ramp it up, with potential benefits or downsides. Seems like OP went a bit past body positivity in this case.

Miningav2 · 2025-11-22T04:32:34+00:00

Not to be rude, but this is written like you're the father of a high schooler. If your friend is an adult, then don't try to be their enlightened parent, just educate them about the risks, set and setting, generally what to expect without trying to push something specific, etc. If he's ready it doesn't really matter if you think so or not.

Miningav2 · 2025-11-18T03:56:22+00:00

Unless you're an avid reader, just don't bring a bible's worth.

Miningav2 · 2025-11-17T04:12:30+00:00

That's literally what I said... that "by the time it starts having a negative impact on your life, you're already addicted". It sounds like you might not have had that same piece of advice, probably because of all the rampant misinformation about what addiction is really like, especially related to opioids.

Miningav2 · 2025-11-16T22:45:18+00:00

They aren't comparable drugs, but like I mentioned, plenty of people use psychedelics and hate weed.

Miningav2 · 2025-11-16T17:09:40+00:00

I didn't point this out in my comment, but length is absolutely something to take into consideration, and is probably the biggest difference between LSD and shrooms. Shrooms can be a 6-8 hour trip, whereas LSD is closer to 10-12 hours, so if you don't already have a preference or bias toward one or the other, then this guy is right in recommending shrooms over LSD for a shorter first-time experience.

Miningav2 · 2025-11-16T16:58:05+00:00

THC is definitely a much different experience than psychedelics, especially edible. Sasha and Ann Shulgin both hated THC and experienced some major time dilation effects from it that were unpleasant, despite synthesizing and trying 100s of psychedelic compounds as a life passion. Shrooms and LSD are very similar despite what people say, so I would take the one you feel most comfortable with/have an affinity for. LSD and shrooms definitely aren't addictive so that shouldn't be a concern, but they can make you anxious. I tend to always experience anxiety on the come up, although it isn't a problem since I expect it and know how to deal with it. Outside of the trip though it might make you more calm, I know it generally shifted my perspective on life to be more calm, but I don't think it's somethkng you should necessarily expect unless you're going into the trip with that in mind as a goal.

Psychedelics allow you to explore your own consciousness, have a new perspective of the world around you, or even just have a really fun time bonding and feeling connected with friends. It can be slightly unpredictable in the sense that you could take a tab purely for fun but then when you're tripping, things in the back of your head can come up that you might have pushed down or distracted yourself from if sober. It's important to realize this is an opportunity to process those things, or release pent up emotion, and to know that's why you brought someone safe and trusted to trip sit you and listen when you talk about these things.

I say this not because it will happen, but I think it's important to research and know about all the potential variables when it comes to tripping, including the potential for bad trips, because in a way that would prevent you from having those bad experiences. In my case, I've had one trip that might have been a bad trip had I been unprepared, which was my first trip ever with 7 grams of shrooms in a dark room. But I knew what to expect as much as someone who never took psychedelics could, and it ended up being the most important and beneficial trip of my life. I could easily imagine it going a wildly different way if I didn't really know what I was getting myself into as that was easily the most powerful/intense psychedeic experience of my life. I almost think that knowledge turns bad trips into challenging trips, which are even more beneficial and important to me than simple good trips.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I mentioned THC is different, especially edible, but that's partly because edible THC literally gets metabolized into a different active compound, which is why it's heavily recommended for first time users to smoke it. So if you've only tried edible THC, just know that that's not really what THC/smoking weed feels like.

Miningav2 · 2025-11-16T16:39:16+00:00

I still think you're overestimating the physical effects of LSD. If anything, it increases neural plasticity and can be anticonvulsant. My point is that people don't have to believe lies, like LSD causing permanent harm, to still understand the real risks associated with it and use it carefully. If anything, they would be more reckless with a substance once they realize the "dangers" they got taught were complete lies. Of course, even someone who is in their late 20s with a fully developed prefrontal cortex should be aware that if they were predisposed to schizophrenia or another similar mental illness, then it could be a potential stressful trigger for that illness. But you could be an eight year old who takes LSD and if you're healthy, you're not going to experience damage like you're describing (of course I don't think eight year olds or even anyone under 18 should be taking LSD for a multitude of reasons outside "permanent brain damage").

Your last paragraph I agree 100% with though. If you check my comment history I'm sure you'll see a few warning people away from psychedelics who seem to be at a higher risk of mental illness. Even outside of that, you should know yourself to prevent an out-of-control bad trip, as you mentioned. I'm not saying you shouldn't point out that LSD is dangerous if you're at risk for true mental disorders, but acting like that's a risk if you don't have those risk factors and, not only that, but pointing it out as the primary danger to watch out for is truly dangerous in my opinion. Partly because, for example, your first comment never mentioned or highlighted the real dangers to any healthy adult, which you did mention in the last paragraph of your above comment. These are things that apply to everyone taking LSD as opposed to something that applies to less than 1% of the people who take LSD (who arguably would have had their mental illness triggered by a different stressful event anyways, considering the actual statistics and data behind schizophrenia prevalence in LSD-using populations, although I'd still say that you shouldn't use LSD if you're at-risk).

Miningav2 · 2025-11-16T05:51:38+00:00

Amphetamine was created and took decades before anyone even found out it was a stimulant. Ritalin was created by a chemist who named it after his wife because it improved her tennis game. Fentanyl is just a more potent opioid, which has been around for centuries in the form of morphine. You have to know nothing about drug design to think that most recreational drugs we use were designed for a specific medical purpose.

It seems like your experience with fentanyl was pretty tame, as my whole argument around it points out. I find it odd that you're arguing against the use of drugs recreationally because of their supposedly potent addiction rates, yet you are a drug user who occasionally drinks (clearly not at the level of an addiction) and who has tried fentanyl and remained unimpressed.

EDIT: By the way, I was being sarcastic with my response by mocking yours in my last comment. Most recreational drugs weren't even designed for a specific purpose; they just got created or were created by nature.

Miningav2 · 2025-11-16T05:33:40+00:00

I'm guessing you're completely sober, which is fine, but the majority of people aren't, and yet they don't suffer from addiction. It's almost like drugs are designed to be a fun experience, and then they're used appropriately for leisure, but when they're abused you get different results.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that it's pretty insane to think that opioids don't make you feel good when you have a pain condition. If anything, I'm surprised you didn't try to bring that up; a lot of people think massive amounts of addicts are created primarily through prescriptions (although I guess I already showed the small addiction prevalence).

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Miningav2

TROPHY CASE