> I'm quite sure that the less a drug is dependent upon set and setting,
> the higher the risk of abuse in terms of "making the drug do something
> that you should do yourself". According to a study about drug-abuse,
> hallucinongenics (which are totally dependent on set and setting) have a
> rather low "abuse-potential", while opiates are frequently "abused" (if
> anyone's interested I can dig it out - unfortunately, I have the mail on
> another computer...)
Yes, hallucinogenic drugs have a low abuse potential (that is widely
acknowledged in the scientific literature). But this might not be
because of their reliance on set and setting, rather the low abuse
potential and the set-and-setting-ness are both a result of the fact
that they do not strongly affect the reward systems of the
brain. Anything that makes those systems fire is addictive, if ever so
slightly.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y