13 ms·

First federal grant for psychedelic treatment research in 50 years

512 points by infodocket 5y ago

thedudeabides5 5y ago
Drugs are bad. But alcohol is good for you and you should definitely drink to make friends and influence people.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    Are you saying cigarettes are good, or vaccines are bad? I'm not following.
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      I'm saying that government doesn't have your health in mind, whether it be the vaccine, cigarettes, alcohol, sugar, health care, etc. They laugh all the way to the bank.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      The nicotine vaccine, surely.
yellow_lead 5y ago
It will be interesting to see the results, which may have built-in reproduce-ability. > The study will be conducted simultaneously at the three institutions to diversify the pool of participants and increase confidence that results apply to a wide range of people who smoke.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
standardUser 5y ago
It's nice to see the cowards and control freaks losing their fight to increase human suffering. But wow it has been a long, expensive road with uncountable casualties.
- sammalloy 5y ago
  Science progresses, one funeral at a time. Most of the opposition to psychedelics eventually just died out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
ultra_nick 5y ago
Watch one of these turn out to a miracle cure for some random disease. I can understand preventing access to dangerous drugs for the average person, but keeping ourselves deliberately ignorant by blocking research was stupid.
- babyshake 5y ago
  It's impossible to talk about how dangerous psychedelics are without context of the dosage as well as the setting for higher doses. We don't consider alcohol to be especially dangerous only because it requires a very large amount of most forms of alcoholic beverages to result in alcohol poisoning and death.
  - Dumblydorr 5y ago
    You vaguely imply psychedelics are dangerous, comparing them to alcohol, yet you provide zero evidence of their dangers. Sounds like you need to flesh out your post, it comes across anti-psychdelic with no reasoning. Especially odd because we DO consider alcohol dangerous, why else is there a 21 age minimum on it, why else is drunk driving a scourge and menace? The "danger of psychedelics" looks meek by comparison.
  - rib3ye 5y ago
    Like anything else, doesn't that depend on the concentration?
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      Psychedelics have other dangers than acute toxicity. Not that I’m giving medical advice but it is extraordinarily difficult to die as a result of an overdose of most pure psychedelics which aren’t strange “research chemicals”. (Although I vaguely remember reading about a guy who accidentally took something like tens of thousands of effective doses of LSD being in a coma for quite a while) However their power is in their ability to reshape your mind… and that they can do in very undesirable ways if done wrong.
kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
I heard it prevents Covid. Many people are saying this. The best people.
dekhn 5y ago
After many years reading about Leary, I realize now that he set the field back by decades.
- kesslern 5y ago
  Michael Pollen talks about this in his book, How To Change Your Mind. It's insane how irresponsible Leary was. A good example is what's commonly called the Good Friday Experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment
  - dekhn 5y ago
    I'm more concerned about the lack of random sampling: Leary and Alpert taught a class that was required for graduation and colleagues felt they were abusing their power by pressuring graduate students to take hallucinogens in the experiments. Leary and Alpert also went against policy by giving psychedelics to undergraduate students, and did not select participants through random sampling. It was also problematic that the researchers sometimes took hallucinogens along with the subjects they were supposed to be studying
  - gremloni 5y ago
    Intuitively, we learnt a lot about human behavior when we were able to do those unethical experiments back in the 60s and 70s. Set us back yes, but “set us back” by being moving us forward unsustainably.
    - Enginerrrd 5y ago
      The last several years, I've noticed there's been a lot of effort to debunk and discredit a lot of those unethical experiments. I'm still inclined to agree with you though.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      I am not aware of any long-term legitimate findings in psychology research from the 60s or 70s (that would not be allowed today). Are you? My guess is all, or nearly all, have been debunked, or are non-reproducible for silly technical reasons.
eminence32 5y ago
This is an off-topic comment, but in the title it seems the word "for" was replaced by the letter "4" -- is this a common substitution for NH titles? Was it done because of length constraints?
- napsterbr 5y ago
  > Was it done because of length constraints? Yep, most likely. The title has exactly 80 characters, which is the limit. "Years" was also abbreviated.
  - drannex 5y ago
    Personal opinion, but I think it's time that HN increases the character limit, we are seeing more and more of these sort of things.
    - kazinator 5y ago
      It's a tricky business. In terms of raw screen width, we have it. Or do we? Not necessarily on mobile, in portrait orientation. From a readability/usability perspective, imagine the HN front page being filled top to bottom with titles, some of which go to 150 characters; what would that be like? (A mock-up could be easily obtained for evaluation; or HN could just experiment with it for a few days.) Currently, most titles don't strain the existing limit. When we scan the front page now, for instance, there are good many short and medium length titles. A modest increase, say by +20 characters, might relieve most of the pressure without too many negative effects. Which is to say that maybe the current limit is a bit to the left of the true "sweet spot".
      - tux3 5y ago
        I think I'd be happy with longer titles, since that's an artificial limitation separate from how we vote and judge submissions. If posts have unnecessarily long titles enough to bother, they'll be systematically downvoted a little more and fall out of practice. If the system wanted to put a hard limit on wordiness, it should have a good reason why! We're all wasting a little time on inefficiencies otherwise.
jugg1es 5y ago
My dad is a professor of psychiatry at JHU medical school and has been telling me about this psilocybin study for years. He was always pretty strict about me doing drugs growing up, but now he's excited about the amazing results they're seeing in this study. He's even been asking me about my own hallucinogen experiences that I had growing up. The world is truly changing.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  I'm happy for you and your dad, and for our country - we need little victories, and this a big one for everyone. The science part has to be uniquely thrilling, though. Your dad's in a wonderful place in space and history.
- tayo42 5y ago
  My parents were real strict about drugs growing up too. Even in my late 20s I would dodge the question about drugs. Idk what changed in the last couple years. They both have gotten more open about it. More so my dad, whos now growing mushrooms and microdosing, and gave dmt and mdma a try. I showed him how to do dabs and hit a bong correctly lol. He cant get around the idea snorting something so no ketamine yet and is having trouble finding time for acid. I think Michael Pollans book helped a bit. Its crazy to see though. I used to be pretty shy about my drug use, but i try talking about it more if it comes up. I like to think it helps get rid of the stigma.
  - klondike_klive 5y ago
    >They both have gotten more open about it. More so my dad, whos now growing mushrooms and microdosing, and gave dmt and mdma a try. I showed him how to do dabs and hit a bong correctly lol. Wow. That sentence escalated quickly! (Actually if DMT reports are anything to go by, the sentence peaked there...)
cletus 5y ago
Here's a fun fact: since 1968, only one US institution, the University of Mississippi, has had a Federal license to grow marijuana for medical research [1], although this may be (finally) changing [2]. The barriers to Federally funded medical research of cannabis remain significant [3]. It's almost like the University of Mississippi and the Federal government are doing everything they can to stymie research and limit access. Also, cannabis remains a Schedule 1 drug at the Federal level. Schedule 1 drugs are "drugs of abuse" that have "no accepted medical use" [4], the same as methamphetamine and crack cocaine (and of course it's worth mentioning that powdered cocaine is the less serious Schedule 3). All the while ~18 states have legalized recreational and/or medical cannabis at the state level [5]. The case for the continued criminalization is beyond ridiculous. I fully support decriminalization and further study of the effect of psychedelics but I'm not confident that the US government, even with a Democratic president, a Democratic House and a (notionally) Democratic Senate won't make this as difficult as possible. The roots of US criminalization of cannabis and psychadelics is rooted in racism (eg crack cocaine vs powder cocaine), cracking down on counterculturalism and anti-Vietnam protesters (ie the hippy movement of the 60s and 70s) and virtue signaling to a conservative and fearful voter base under the guise of "law and order" and "family values". It's truly ridiculous we're still here some 50+ years later. [1]: https://www.drugdiscoverytrends.com/nations-only-federally-authorized-grower-provides-marijuana-for-research-community/ https://www.drugdiscoverytrends.com/nations-only-federally-a... [2]: https://mjbizdaily.com/dea-preparing-to-ok-companies-to-grow-cannabis-for-scientific-research/ https://mjbizdaily.com/dea-preparing-to-ok-companies-to-grow... [3]: https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/natural-products/Cannabis-research-stalled-federal-inaction/98/i25 https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/natural-products/Ca... [4]: https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction#:~:text=The%20recreational%20use%20of%20cannabis,Islands%20have%20decriminalized%20its%20use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._j....
- tclancy 5y ago
  I’m 100% with you, but this country will forever be legislating the fact their neighbors might be happy and enjoying life. And then the fact so much race enters into it too as you mention, just makes it addictive for certain people. It’s like crack or something.
throwaway990909 5y ago
I was a participant (ie, research subject) in one of the previous rounds of studying psilocybin for smoking cessation at Johns Hopkins. I was randomly assigned to the non-psilocybin "control" group. I still successfully quit smoking -- the "cognitive behavioral therapy" and just general support was great. The researchers showed genuine care, it wasn't like being a lab rat. Because the study was designed with a "crossover" component, I still got the option, which I took, to return 6 months later for a psilocybin session. The session was interesting, but I wouldn't say life-changing. Probably. I am still a non-smoker, over 2 years after quit date, did the 6-months-post-quit session help? Maybe? Ask me anything! Although I'm not sure what else there is to say!
- loceng 5y ago
  So what I'm curious about then is the practices/experiences the researchers/staff involved used/had in order to provide you with the space that you found supportive enough to help you quit smoking. What was the dosing for the session with psilocybin? Did they tell you the strain/weight?
  - throwaway990909 5y ago
    They told me the weight, but I forget. It was a large "heroic" dose. The research protocol is perhaps already available somewhere (published paper, pre-print, registered study, not sure) which would have the dose. They used manufactured/sythesized psilocybin compound in a capsule, not mushrooms or extracted from mushrooms. I think they tried to take all the 'best practices' for quitting smoking and gave it to all participants, same experience up until quit day. On quit day, "control" group got a prescription for nicotine patch; "psilocybin group" got a session (and no patch!) -- the psilocybin group in this particular study was just one "heroic" dose session on smoking quit day, that's it. Some of the supportive practices or suggestions included: * just regular sessions, that were in some ways more or less like a "therapy" session focused on looking at smoking in your life. (whatever that means to you, it really was also just a good therapy session!) * set your quit day near the beginning, several months before the quit day. Build up to it. * at one period, every time you want to smoke, note what you feel like and what is precipating it, make a note of it. Develop a sense of what things make you want to smoke and why, and what role is has in your life. * A "practice quit" day a month or two (I forget) before actual quit day -- just try not to smoke for 24 hours, see what it's like, knowing you can smoke again after that. Now you know what it's like, and that you got through the worst day, and what parts are going to be hardest and can develop more strategies for them. * Get a clear list of the reasons you want to quit. Think about em. Write it down, to refer to it when it gets hard. * Make a list of things you can do instead of smoking, after you quit. It doesn't matter if they are unhealthy (junk food or whatever), they're still healthier than smoking. * after quit day, phone number of a therapist you've been working with, invitation to call or text if you feel tempted and need support and to talk through it. Therapist texted me daily checking in, seeing how it's going. (seriously, why DON'T we use techniques we associate with alcohol and other drug addiction treatment on cigarettes, you know? they are crazy addictive!) There were other things too, additional like little cognitive-behavioral (I guess?) games/techniques. I don't even remember them all. I should have taken more notes on all of it! Just having people there rooting for you and to whom you feel kind of accountable to is big. If their study really does show significantly more success in psylocybin group than control group, I find it meaningful that even the control group got really good support from good counselors. (And I still wouldn't say it was easy to quit!)
vmception 5y ago
Its always so interesting to me to run into people conditioned to have a blanket juvenile “anti drugs” view, especially if they are US citizens They cant even tell the difference between substances to say why or why not If thats you, why is that? And is there any specific authority you would need to hear from to take another look?
pksebben 5y ago
I worry that this is NIDA-funded. That institution has history of commissioning nonsense studies to maintain prohibitions. [1] They're also probably responsible for a series of (failed) propaganda pieces focused on maintaining an arbitrarily anti-drug culture [2] 1 http://www.ukcia.org/research/gettman.htm http://www.ukcia.org/research/gettman.htm 2 https://slate.com/technology/2006/09/a-white-house-drug-deal-gone-bad.html https://slate.com/technology/2006/09/a-white-house-drug-deal...
- alxndr 5y ago
  A) it is; "The grant, totaling nearly $4 million, is funded by NIH’s National Institute on Drug Abuse." B) your first link is 404ing
  - pksebben 5y ago
    a - Put more precisely, I worry because this is Nida-funded b - thanks. It's too late to edit, so... http://www.ukcia.org/research/gettman.html http://www.ukcia.org/research/gettman.html edit redux: still 404-ing. rats.
pkaye 5y ago
I presume other countries didn't have a ban on such research so there should already be research data from those countries on the benefits of psychedelic treatment?
- cyberpsybin 5y ago
  US forces countries it trades with to align themselves with its drug laws. Just another front in war against drugs.
Miller59 5y ago
Thanks for sharing, I am very impressed with your post. https://www.tellthebell.mobi/ https://www.tellthebell.mobi/
Miller59 5y ago
Thanks for sharing, I am very impressed with your post. https://www.tellthebell.mobi/ https://www.tellthebell.mobi/
bwest87 5y ago
A friend and I did a "guided" psychedelic session earlier this year. We did it individually over one weekend. It was great. She did it for more therapeutic reasons. I did it more for philosophy/spiritual reasons. But the two main things I took away are 1.) Guided sessions are qualitatively different than recreational sessions, and 2.) It is such a crying shame that this isn't an accepted "tool in the toolbox" for therapists. It's not about having crazy life altering, world-bending experiences (though that can happen). It's just about helping you get into a state of mind that allows for an effective therapy session. Sort of like... would you want to do your therapy session in a crowded bar, next to your mom? No, probably not. We all recognize that such a setting would not be conducive to good therapy. So similarly, we should be able to recognize that having the right setting, both mentally and physically can affect the quality of your session. Psychadelics can do exactly this. It's also worth noting my friend has done "regular" therapy for 2 years, and she felt like there was a step change after the guided session. Her therapist noticed it as well. When you consider that pain meds have ruined literally millions of lives through addiction, and that also virtually (maybe literally?) no one has ever died due to overdose of psilocybin, it's very confusing why one is prescribed all the time, and the other is considered incredibly dangerous. The U.S.'s perspective on drugs is so very backwards.
- elromulous 5y ago
  >it's very confusing why one is prescribed all the time, and the other is considered incredibly dangerous. The U.S.'s perspective on drugs is so very backwards. The lobbying system. Aka legalized corruption.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  One session means one time or a few times in one week ? Do you or her plan to keep doing it ?
  - bwest87 5y ago
    One session meaning one time. Both of us think it would be valuable to do, but on the timescale of like... once/year or once every few years. But there are people who do it once/month for several months if they have a lot of specific things to work through. Our guide actually works with a number of 'regular' therapists, and they pass clients on to him if they think a guided session is the right move. He says therapists will sometimes say, "please take this person on a journey once / month for the next 3 months" (or something along those lines)
sexy_seedbox 5y ago
One can only hope for something close to this in Southeast Asia : (

512 points by infodocket 5y ago

thedudeabides5 5y ago

Drugs are bad. But alcohol is good for you and you should definitely drink to make friends and influence people.

encryptluks2 5y ago
[flagged]
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  Are you saying cigarettes are good, or vaccines are bad? I'm not following.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    I'm saying that government doesn't have your health in mind, whether it be the vaccine, cigarettes, alcohol, sugar, health care, etc. They laugh all the way to the bank.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    The nicotine vaccine, surely.

yellow_lead 5y ago

It will be interesting to see the results, which may have built-in reproduce-ability. > The study will be conducted simultaneously at the three institutions to diversify the pool of participants and increase confidence that results apply to a wide range of people who smoke.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

standardUser 5y ago

It's nice to see the cowards and control freaks losing their fight to increase human suffering. But wow it has been a long, expensive road with uncountable casualties.

sammalloy 5y ago
Science progresses, one funeral at a time. Most of the opposition to psychedelics eventually just died out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

ultra_nick 5y ago

Watch one of these turn out to a miracle cure for some random disease. I can understand preventing access to dangerous drugs for the average person, but keeping ourselves deliberately ignorant by blocking research was stupid.

babyshake 5y ago
It's impossible to talk about how dangerous psychedelics are without context of the dosage as well as the setting for higher doses. We don't consider alcohol to be especially dangerous only because it requires a very large amount of most forms of alcoholic beverages to result in alcohol poisoning and death.
- Dumblydorr 5y ago
  You vaguely imply psychedelics are dangerous, comparing them to alcohol, yet you provide zero evidence of their dangers. Sounds like you need to flesh out your post, it comes across anti-psychdelic with no reasoning. Especially odd because we DO consider alcohol dangerous, why else is there a 21 age minimum on it, why else is drunk driving a scourge and menace? The "danger of psychedelics" looks meek by comparison.
- rib3ye 5y ago
  Like anything else, doesn't that depend on the concentration?
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    Psychedelics have other dangers than acute toxicity. Not that I’m giving medical advice but it is extraordinarily difficult to die as a result of an overdose of most pure psychedelics which aren’t strange “research chemicals”. (Although I vaguely remember reading about a guy who accidentally took something like tens of thousands of effective doses of LSD being in a coma for quite a while) However their power is in their ability to reshape your mind… and that they can do in very undesirable ways if done wrong.

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago

I heard it prevents Covid. Many people are saying this. The best people.

dekhn 5y ago

After many years reading about Leary, I realize now that he set the field back by decades.

kesslern 5y ago
Michael Pollen talks about this in his book, How To Change Your Mind. It's insane how irresponsible Leary was. A good example is what's commonly called the Good Friday Experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment
- dekhn 5y ago
  I'm more concerned about the lack of random sampling: Leary and Alpert taught a class that was required for graduation and colleagues felt they were abusing their power by pressuring graduate students to take hallucinogens in the experiments. Leary and Alpert also went against policy by giving psychedelics to undergraduate students, and did not select participants through random sampling. It was also problematic that the researchers sometimes took hallucinogens along with the subjects they were supposed to be studying
- gremloni 5y ago
  Intuitively, we learnt a lot about human behavior when we were able to do those unethical experiments back in the 60s and 70s. Set us back yes, but “set us back” by being moving us forward unsustainably.
  - Enginerrrd 5y ago
    The last several years, I've noticed there's been a lot of effort to debunk and discredit a lot of those unethical experiments. I'm still inclined to agree with you though.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    I am not aware of any long-term legitimate findings in psychology research from the 60s or 70s (that would not be allowed today). Are you? My guess is all, or nearly all, have been debunked, or are non-reproducible for silly technical reasons.

eminence32 5y ago

This is an off-topic comment, but in the title it seems the word "for" was replaced by the letter "4" -- is this a common substitution for NH titles? Was it done because of length constraints?

napsterbr 5y ago
> Was it done because of length constraints? Yep, most likely. The title has exactly 80 characters, which is the limit. "Years" was also abbreviated.
- drannex 5y ago
  Personal opinion, but I think it's time that HN increases the character limit, we are seeing more and more of these sort of things.
  - kazinator 5y ago
    It's a tricky business. In terms of raw screen width, we have it. Or do we? Not necessarily on mobile, in portrait orientation. From a readability/usability perspective, imagine the HN front page being filled top to bottom with titles, some of which go to 150 characters; what would that be like? (A mock-up could be easily obtained for evaluation; or HN could just experiment with it for a few days.) Currently, most titles don't strain the existing limit. When we scan the front page now, for instance, there are good many short and medium length titles. A modest increase, say by +20 characters, might relieve most of the pressure without too many negative effects. Which is to say that maybe the current limit is a bit to the left of the true "sweet spot".
    - tux3 5y ago
      I think I'd be happy with longer titles, since that's an artificial limitation separate from how we vote and judge submissions. If posts have unnecessarily long titles enough to bother, they'll be systematically downvoted a little more and fall out of practice. If the system wanted to put a hard limit on wordiness, it should have a good reason why! We're all wasting a little time on inefficiencies otherwise.

jugg1es 5y ago

My dad is a professor of psychiatry at JHU medical school and has been telling me about this psilocybin study for years. He was always pretty strict about me doing drugs growing up, but now he's excited about the amazing results they're seeing in this study. He's even been asking me about my own hallucinogen experiences that I had growing up. The world is truly changing.

robbedpeter 5y ago
I'm happy for you and your dad, and for our country - we need little victories, and this a big one for everyone. The science part has to be uniquely thrilling, though. Your dad's in a wonderful place in space and history.
tayo42 5y ago
My parents were real strict about drugs growing up too. Even in my late 20s I would dodge the question about drugs. Idk what changed in the last couple years. They both have gotten more open about it. More so my dad, whos now growing mushrooms and microdosing, and gave dmt and mdma a try. I showed him how to do dabs and hit a bong correctly lol. He cant get around the idea snorting something so no ketamine yet and is having trouble finding time for acid. I think Michael Pollans book helped a bit. Its crazy to see though. I used to be pretty shy about my drug use, but i try talking about it more if it comes up. I like to think it helps get rid of the stigma.
- klondike_klive 5y ago
  >They both have gotten more open about it. More so my dad, whos now growing mushrooms and microdosing, and gave dmt and mdma a try. I showed him how to do dabs and hit a bong correctly lol. Wow. That sentence escalated quickly! (Actually if DMT reports are anything to go by, the sentence peaked there...)

cletus 5y ago

Here's a fun fact: since 1968, only one US institution, the University of Mississippi, has had a Federal license to grow marijuana for medical research [1], although this may be (finally) changing [2]. The barriers to Federally funded medical research of cannabis remain significant [3]. It's almost like the University of Mississippi and the Federal government are doing everything they can to stymie research and limit access. Also, cannabis remains a Schedule 1 drug at the Federal level. Schedule 1 drugs are "drugs of abuse" that have "no accepted medical use" [4], the same as methamphetamine and crack cocaine (and of course it's worth mentioning that powdered cocaine is the less serious Schedule 3). All the while ~18 states have legalized recreational and/or medical cannabis at the state level [5]. The case for the continued criminalization is beyond ridiculous. I fully support decriminalization and further study of the effect of psychedelics but I'm not confident that the US government, even with a Democratic president, a Democratic House and a (notionally) Democratic Senate won't make this as difficult as possible. The roots of US criminalization of cannabis and psychadelics is rooted in racism (eg crack cocaine vs powder cocaine), cracking down on counterculturalism and anti-Vietnam protesters (ie the hippy movement of the 60s and 70s) and virtue signaling to a conservative and fearful voter base under the guise of "law and order" and "family values". It's truly ridiculous we're still here some 50+ years later. [1]: https://www.drugdiscoverytrends.com/nations-only-federally-authorized-grower-provides-marijuana-for-research-community/ https://www.drugdiscoverytrends.com/nations-only-federally-a... [2]: https://mjbizdaily.com/dea-preparing-to-ok-companies-to-grow-cannabis-for-scientific-research/ https://mjbizdaily.com/dea-preparing-to-ok-companies-to-grow... [3]: https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/natural-products/Cannabis-research-stalled-federal-inaction/98/i25 https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/natural-products/Ca... [4]: https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction#:~:text=The%20recreational%20use%20of%20cannabis,Islands%20have%20decriminalized%20its%20use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._j....

tclancy 5y ago
I’m 100% with you, but this country will forever be legislating the fact their neighbors might be happy and enjoying life. And then the fact so much race enters into it too as you mention, just makes it addictive for certain people. It’s like crack or something.

throwaway990909 5y ago

I was a participant (ie, research subject) in one of the previous rounds of studying psilocybin for smoking cessation at Johns Hopkins. I was randomly assigned to the non-psilocybin "control" group. I still successfully quit smoking -- the "cognitive behavioral therapy" and just general support was great. The researchers showed genuine care, it wasn't like being a lab rat. Because the study was designed with a "crossover" component, I still got the option, which I took, to return 6 months later for a psilocybin session. The session was interesting, but I wouldn't say life-changing. Probably. I am still a non-smoker, over 2 years after quit date, did the 6-months-post-quit session help? Maybe? Ask me anything! Although I'm not sure what else there is to say!

loceng 5y ago
So what I'm curious about then is the practices/experiences the researchers/staff involved used/had in order to provide you with the space that you found supportive enough to help you quit smoking. What was the dosing for the session with psilocybin? Did they tell you the strain/weight?
- throwaway990909 5y ago
  They told me the weight, but I forget. It was a large "heroic" dose. The research protocol is perhaps already available somewhere (published paper, pre-print, registered study, not sure) which would have the dose. They used manufactured/sythesized psilocybin compound in a capsule, not mushrooms or extracted from mushrooms. I think they tried to take all the 'best practices' for quitting smoking and gave it to all participants, same experience up until quit day. On quit day, "control" group got a prescription for nicotine patch; "psilocybin group" got a session (and no patch!) -- the psilocybin group in this particular study was just one "heroic" dose session on smoking quit day, that's it. Some of the supportive practices or suggestions included: * just regular sessions, that were in some ways more or less like a "therapy" session focused on looking at smoking in your life. (whatever that means to you, it really was also just a good therapy session!) * set your quit day near the beginning, several months before the quit day. Build up to it. * at one period, every time you want to smoke, note what you feel like and what is precipating it, make a note of it. Develop a sense of what things make you want to smoke and why, and what role is has in your life. * A "practice quit" day a month or two (I forget) before actual quit day -- just try not to smoke for 24 hours, see what it's like, knowing you can smoke again after that. Now you know what it's like, and that you got through the worst day, and what parts are going to be hardest and can develop more strategies for them. * Get a clear list of the reasons you want to quit. Think about em. Write it down, to refer to it when it gets hard. * Make a list of things you can do instead of smoking, after you quit. It doesn't matter if they are unhealthy (junk food or whatever), they're still healthier than smoking. * after quit day, phone number of a therapist you've been working with, invitation to call or text if you feel tempted and need support and to talk through it. Therapist texted me daily checking in, seeing how it's going. (seriously, why DON'T we use techniques we associate with alcohol and other drug addiction treatment on cigarettes, you know? they are crazy addictive!) There were other things too, additional like little cognitive-behavioral (I guess?) games/techniques. I don't even remember them all. I should have taken more notes on all of it! Just having people there rooting for you and to whom you feel kind of accountable to is big. If their study really does show significantly more success in psylocybin group than control group, I find it meaningful that even the control group got really good support from good counselors. (And I still wouldn't say it was easy to quit!)

vmception 5y ago

Its always so interesting to me to run into people conditioned to have a blanket juvenile “anti drugs” view, especially if they are US citizens They cant even tell the difference between substances to say why or why not If thats you, why is that? And is there any specific authority you would need to hear from to take another look?

pksebben 5y ago

I worry that this is NIDA-funded. That institution has history of commissioning nonsense studies to maintain prohibitions. [1] They're also probably responsible for a series of (failed) propaganda pieces focused on maintaining an arbitrarily anti-drug culture [2] 1 http://www.ukcia.org/research/gettman.htm http://www.ukcia.org/research/gettman.htm 2 https://slate.com/technology/2006/09/a-white-house-drug-deal-gone-bad.html https://slate.com/technology/2006/09/a-white-house-drug-deal...

alxndr 5y ago
A) it is; "The grant, totaling nearly $4 million, is funded by NIH’s National Institute on Drug Abuse." B) your first link is 404ing
- pksebben 5y ago
  a - Put more precisely, I worry because this is Nida-funded b - thanks. It's too late to edit, so... http://www.ukcia.org/research/gettman.html http://www.ukcia.org/research/gettman.html edit redux: still 404-ing. rats.

pkaye 5y ago

I presume other countries didn't have a ban on such research so there should already be research data from those countries on the benefits of psychedelic treatment?

cyberpsybin 5y ago
US forces countries it trades with to align themselves with its drug laws. Just another front in war against drugs.

Miller59 5y ago

Thanks for sharing, I am very impressed with your post. https://www.tellthebell.mobi/ https://www.tellthebell.mobi/

Miller59 5y ago

Thanks for sharing, I am very impressed with your post. https://www.tellthebell.mobi/ https://www.tellthebell.mobi/

bwest87 5y ago

A friend and I did a "guided" psychedelic session earlier this year. We did it individually over one weekend. It was great. She did it for more therapeutic reasons. I did it more for philosophy/spiritual reasons. But the two main things I took away are 1.) Guided sessions are qualitatively different than recreational sessions, and 2.) It is such a crying shame that this isn't an accepted "tool in the toolbox" for therapists. It's not about having crazy life altering, world-bending experiences (though that can happen). It's just about helping you get into a state of mind that allows for an effective therapy session. Sort of like... would you want to do your therapy session in a crowded bar, next to your mom? No, probably not. We all recognize that such a setting would not be conducive to good therapy. So similarly, we should be able to recognize that having the right setting, both mentally and physically can affect the quality of your session. Psychadelics can do exactly this. It's also worth noting my friend has done "regular" therapy for 2 years, and she felt like there was a step change after the guided session. Her therapist noticed it as well. When you consider that pain meds have ruined literally millions of lives through addiction, and that also virtually (maybe literally?) no one has ever died due to overdose of psilocybin, it's very confusing why one is prescribed all the time, and the other is considered incredibly dangerous. The U.S.'s perspective on drugs is so very backwards.

elromulous 5y ago
>it's very confusing why one is prescribed all the time, and the other is considered incredibly dangerous. The U.S.'s perspective on drugs is so very backwards. The lobbying system. Aka legalized corruption.
agumonkey 5y ago
One session means one time or a few times in one week ? Do you or her plan to keep doing it ?
- bwest87 5y ago
  One session meaning one time. Both of us think it would be valuable to do, but on the timescale of like... once/year or once every few years. But there are people who do it once/month for several months if they have a lot of specific things to work through. Our guide actually works with a number of 'regular' therapists, and they pass clients on to him if they think a guided session is the right move. He says therapists will sometimes say, "please take this person on a journey once / month for the next 3 months" (or something along those lines)

sexy_seedbox 5y ago

One can only hope for something close to this in Southeast Asia : (