4 ms·

> Lily Kay Ross said she felt compelled to leave work in psychedelics after she spoke out about her rape by an ayahuasca shaman in the Amazon. “I was told expli

> Lily Kay Ross said she felt compelled to leave work in psychedelics after she spoke out about her rape by an ayahuasca shaman in the Amazon. “I was told explicitly that I might single-handedly re-instigate the war on drugs and undo all of the advancements in the field of psychedelic research since the 1960s,” she said. “There’s the idea that psychedelics are so important and so wonderful that the train has to keep going. We can’t slow down to get the rapists off the train.” Interestingly, this is sort of homomorphic to the viewpoint that drove George Orwell to write Animal Farm. There the belief was you shouldn't point out the flaws in the USSR because you might set socialism (a desirable ideology to his associates) back some amount of time. It's sort of an interesting view. I, for one, want most of these drugs made available to me easily. I'd like to have trusted MDMA or LSD, purely for recreational purposes. But there's no way I want that to come with the baggage of abusive therapists and all that crap. It's absolutely unacceptable that we can put people in positions where other people are exploiting them. And I think we should make these things just as public as they deserve precisely because of what they are and what they say about how we do things. Essentially, I think this trickle-down illegal->medicinal->legal route is just ripe for abuse since you're giving too much power to the people who can let you have the thing. I wish there were an 'accredited investor' for drugs. Most people are unable to handle drugs. But I'm different. I've used. I've gone half a decade without using. I've used again. And I'm healthy by any metric you could consider.

luckylion 7y ago
I agree. Also, if you're not dealing with accusations the proper way, you're looking like a cult. If you're going to suggest using psychedelics in a therapy settings and a side note is "oh yeah and we don't report rapes because that could set back our efforts", you're really just showing terrible judgement and that you have no business being anywhere in a medical profession. On the contrary: being professional and transparent, removing bad actors will be a good approach. You won't convince anyone that's against psychedelics on principle, but you also won't turn anyone away by dealing with rape accusations like every group should. Granted, it's should, there are very few communities where that ever happens, it's mostly about how powerful the victim and the perpetrator are. I like the idea of accredited user, but it's hard to decide. With investors, you can look at account statements and say "okay, crossed the threshold, thanks". For personal stability, that's a very different and much more complicated issue where you'd hand whoever decides a lot of power. I do think we should have legal drugs anyhow, the harm reduction alone is worth it.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Is the Catholic Church a cult? It's well known for not dealing either rape in a proper way. Also Hollywood.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > Is the Catholic Church a cult? It's well known for not dealing either rape in a proper way. And I assume they do so for very similar reasons. The difference between a church and a cult is its size & power, if you're large enough, you become a church and then a religion. If you're small, you're a cult that believes in obviously imaginary stuff. I don't think we should have the Pope or some Hollywood star in charge of medical treatments, and everyone should be skeptical if musicians promise them a cure for cancer as well.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  To be honest, my desire for the use is mostly driven by self-interest: I enjoy using and can clearly responsibly use so I don't want to be held back by the incapable. To that end, I think I'm willing to accept it as "pay into this insurance fund that will cover you if you need care" so that you remove the societal cost that you impose and then when you legalize you remove the externalities like the drug lords and all that.

luckylion 7y ago

I agree. Also, if you're not dealing with accusations the proper way, you're looking like a cult. If you're going to suggest using psychedelics in a therapy settings and a side note is "oh yeah and we don't report rapes because that could set back our efforts", you're really just showing terrible judgement and that you have no business being anywhere in a medical profession. On the contrary: being professional and transparent, removing bad actors will be a good approach. You won't convince anyone that's against psychedelics on principle, but you also won't turn anyone away by dealing with rape accusations like every group should. Granted, it's should, there are very few communities where that ever happens, it's mostly about how powerful the victim and the perpetrator are. I like the idea of accredited user, but it's hard to decide. With investors, you can look at account statements and say "okay, crossed the threshold, thanks". For personal stability, that's a very different and much more complicated issue where you'd hand whoever decides a lot of power. I do think we should have legal drugs anyhow, the harm reduction alone is worth it.

lonelappde 7y ago
Is the Catholic Church a cult? It's well known for not dealing either rape in a proper way. Also Hollywood.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > Is the Catholic Church a cult? It's well known for not dealing either rape in a proper way. And I assume they do so for very similar reasons. The difference between a church and a cult is its size & power, if you're large enough, you become a church and then a religion. If you're small, you're a cult that believes in obviously imaginary stuff. I don't think we should have the Pope or some Hollywood star in charge of medical treatments, and everyone should be skeptical if musicians promise them a cure for cancer as well.
scarejunba 7y ago
To be honest, my desire for the use is mostly driven by self-interest: I enjoy using and can clearly responsibly use so I don't want to be held back by the incapable. To that end, I think I'm willing to accept it as "pay into this insurance fund that will cover you if you need care" so that you remove the societal cost that you impose and then when you legalize you remove the externalities like the drug lords and all that.