3 ms·
Yes, I did. To me, there's an undercurrent here that some of the psychedelic experts have specific, subjective viewpoints (à la Richard Stallman). That these p
by basseq 8y ago
Yes, I did.
To me, there's an undercurrent here that some of the psychedelic experts have specific, subjective viewpoints (à la Richard Stallman). That these people have concerns is interesting, but the case that they're material or even right wasn't proven.
Again, no surprise that they shuttered the nonprofit: it's a corporate structure that precludes you from raising traditional VC, among other limitations. And since they are now a competitive pharmaceutical company, is it any surprise that they're using... competitive pharmaceutical tactics? And, again, is that material? Or is it just tsk-tsk'ing "the way things ought to be"?
These things do tell a very interesting story about pharma practices, research, start-up risks, a subculture going mainstream, etc. I think that story can be told more clearly.
- ghostwthemost 8y agoI think you're purposefully ignoring the other issues that the writer has illustrated quite well in the article. I was going to spend time citing points but you should be well aware of them by this point and I'd rather get back to work.
- diydsp 8y agounfortunately, that's precisely how mainstream culture works: it allows any of your objections to be recast in terms of "sanctioned" procedures. That's why we need to protect our culture from the "dominion" ideology where abject utilization (some would say exploitation) is a _protected_ activity or process. but we currently allow stepping on ppl or traditional entheogen culture because it's part of a "business process." "the law allows it." "it will help ppl so i deserve money for it." ironically, i would like to see how these perspectives change after a generation of psilocybin "consumers."
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]