4 ms·

Perhaps we need a new category of prescription, e.g. "for use only under direct supervision of a qualified medical professional" In other words it could be dis

Perhaps we need a new category of prescription, e.g. "for use only under direct supervision of a qualified medical professional" In other words it could be dispensed in a clinical setting, but not via a pharmacy or other "take home" pathways. I'm thinking that must already exists for certain surgical anesthetics, etc.

cwkoss 8y ago
Loosening the restrictions on the DEA Diversion program would accomplish this - there is a set quota of how much of each scheduled substance can be used for research each year. Unfortunately, this is likely politically challenging as the DEA has a strong self-interest incentive to make drug laws as restrictive as possible, so they can get more funding and successfully prosecute more people.
Alex3917 8y ago
> I'm thinking that must already exists for certain surgical anesthetics, etc. Correct. You can get cocaine when you're at your ophthalmologist, but not from your pharmacy.
- vidarh 8y ago
  For that matter, heroin is used as a morphine alternative in some UK hospitals, and morphine itself is another example.
pmoriarty 8y ago
Such a medical-use-only approach towards legal psychedelic use is indeed what we're moving towards. However, this approach is a controversial one in the psychedelic community. There is a cognitive liberty argument to be made for the use of psychedelics (and all other drugs), namely that one should be free to alter one's consciousness as one sees fit, for whatever reasons one sees fit, without restriction. Medical use is one legitimate use, but use as a sacrament for religious purposes is another, and so is use just for personal enjoyment. Most people don't generally object to someone drinking alcohol for personal enjoyment (or using it as a religious sacrament, for that matter). One does not have to justify one's use of alcohol to anyone, one does not need to have a doctor's permission to use it, nor does one have to take it in a clinical setting. Despite the consequences of alcohol abuse arguably being much worse than psychedelic abuse, no one is seriously considering placing these kinds of restrictions on it. It's true that too many people use psychedelics in frivolous, even destructive ways, and suffer negative consequences as a result. But I'm not sure if the best solution is to limit them to use under a doctor's supervision, as it narrows the potential of psychedelics and directs the narrative towards a medicalizing one: that the only legitimate use of drugs is medical. I'm not sure that's true. Drugs could be positively used towards for creative purposes, for enhancing love, for appreciating nature or one's own life, to enhance one's connection with others, independently of therapy. I'm not sure if everyone's ready for that... we certainly need a lot more education on how to use drugs constructively rather than destructively. But if prohibition has taught us anything it's that people that want to will use drugs regardless of any artificial restrictions put on by the state. So perhaps the most constructive way forward is towards full legalization plug increased education and the offer of help for those that need it.
orasis 8y ago
I agree that experienced guides are important for high doses, but microdosing is safe for DIY.
- __blockcipher__ 8y ago
  And note that a microdose is like 5ug, not 25ug. Just to state the obvious. (100ug being a standard strong tab)
ianai 8y ago
That’s how I’m able to get Botox injections for my migraines. There’s a thorough process in place for in office treatments already across many fields of medicine. This would be no different and plenty of money. I doubt Botox costs 1500 to manufacture a dose.
sneak 8y ago
That's pretty much what "Schedule 2" is for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_I_drugs_(US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_I_drugs_(US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_II_drugs_(US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_II_drugs_(US)
dylan604 8y ago
I would have serious concerns that if a law/rule was made that allowed this, it would require the subject to take these tests in a sterile lab type environment. I could not imagine having a psychedelic experience in a lab/hospital/etc. That would absolutely freak me out. I would want to be outdoors in nature preferably.

cwkoss 8y ago

Loosening the restrictions on the DEA Diversion program would accomplish this - there is a set quota of how much of each scheduled substance can be used for research each year. Unfortunately, this is likely politically challenging as the DEA has a strong self-interest incentive to make drug laws as restrictive as possible, so they can get more funding and successfully prosecute more people.

Alex3917 8y ago

> I'm thinking that must already exists for certain surgical anesthetics, etc. Correct. You can get cocaine when you're at your ophthalmologist, but not from your pharmacy.

vidarh 8y ago
For that matter, heroin is used as a morphine alternative in some UK hospitals, and morphine itself is another example.

pmoriarty 8y ago

Such a medical-use-only approach towards legal psychedelic use is indeed what we're moving towards. However, this approach is a controversial one in the psychedelic community. There is a cognitive liberty argument to be made for the use of psychedelics (and all other drugs), namely that one should be free to alter one's consciousness as one sees fit, for whatever reasons one sees fit, without restriction. Medical use is one legitimate use, but use as a sacrament for religious purposes is another, and so is use just for personal enjoyment. Most people don't generally object to someone drinking alcohol for personal enjoyment (or using it as a religious sacrament, for that matter). One does not have to justify one's use of alcohol to anyone, one does not need to have a doctor's permission to use it, nor does one have to take it in a clinical setting. Despite the consequences of alcohol abuse arguably being much worse than psychedelic abuse, no one is seriously considering placing these kinds of restrictions on it. It's true that too many people use psychedelics in frivolous, even destructive ways, and suffer negative consequences as a result. But I'm not sure if the best solution is to limit them to use under a doctor's supervision, as it narrows the potential of psychedelics and directs the narrative towards a medicalizing one: that the only legitimate use of drugs is medical. I'm not sure that's true. Drugs could be positively used towards for creative purposes, for enhancing love, for appreciating nature or one's own life, to enhance one's connection with others, independently of therapy. I'm not sure if everyone's ready for that... we certainly need a lot more education on how to use drugs constructively rather than destructively. But if prohibition has taught us anything it's that people that want to will use drugs regardless of any artificial restrictions put on by the state. So perhaps the most constructive way forward is towards full legalization plug increased education and the offer of help for those that need it.

orasis 8y ago

I agree that experienced guides are important for high doses, but microdosing is safe for DIY.

__blockcipher__ 8y ago
And note that a microdose is like 5ug, not 25ug. Just to state the obvious. (100ug being a standard strong tab)

ianai 8y ago

That’s how I’m able to get Botox injections for my migraines. There’s a thorough process in place for in office treatments already across many fields of medicine. This would be no different and plenty of money. I doubt Botox costs 1500 to manufacture a dose.

sneak 8y ago

That's pretty much what "Schedule 2" is for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_I_drugs_(US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_I_drugs_(US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_II_drugs_(US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_II_drugs_(US)

dylan604 8y ago

I would have serious concerns that if a law/rule was made that allowed this, it would require the subject to take these tests in a sterile lab type environment. I could not imagine having a psychedelic experience in a lab/hospital/etc. That would absolutely freak me out. I would want to be outdoors in nature preferably.