3 ms·

I could be just in a bitter mood, but somehow all of these articles decrying what a terrible job we did by shutting down psychedelic research in favor of a war

I could be just in a bitter mood, but somehow all of these articles decrying what a terrible job we did by shutting down psychedelic research in favor of a war on drugs... Don't make me feel optimistic that we've moved on or improved as a species. Like, this attitude of "oh NOW we see, we were just dumb 40 years ago! Everything will be better because NOW we get it" strikes me as exactly the same attitude that caused this problem in the first place. The regulators etc thought they knew better and "fixed" the errors of the past by starting the war on drugs. I guess to me, like, just focus on science and principles like free speech and the funding of interesting hypotheses. I feel like we're just demonizing a new group here and not learning the lesson of: "stop demonizing."

tastyfreeze 3y ago
Sure, it can feel that way if you believe that the war on drugs was started to keep people safe. However, if it was started as a means to persecute "undesireables" or political opponents the current trend seems less questionable.
travisjungroth 3y ago
I mean this sincerely: I think you’re right about this coming from your mood. You haven’t engaged with the actual argument much. It’s pretty reasonable to say things people did in the past were wrong. You can do things from first principles, but that also gets real abstract. Eventually, people need to be for or against specific policies.
fasterik 3y ago
I think we actually did learn things that we didn't know the first time around. We know that it's dangerous when influential researchers go around promoting psychedelics as a panacea like Timothy Leary did. The current wave of researchers seem to be much more responsible in emphasizing an evidence-based approach, the importance of screening for risk factors, and limiting the use of psychedelics to a controlled therapeutic setting.
- InCityDreams 3y ago
  > and limiting the use of psychedelics to a controlled therapeutic setting. Your other points I understand. This particular one I find controversial as one of the unkowns is what is an ideal setting? I've got friends that will drop a tab, and go for a beer - just as impossible for me as sitting in a 'controlled environment' [therapeutic setting] with a shrink, or a Man-retreat for ex-military types. I'd like to just have easy access to a known quality, and strength of chemical, that I can happily take, wheresoever I prefer.
  - fasterik 3y ago
    There are well known risks of psychosis and schizophrenia associated with psychedelics. Just because your friend can drop a tab and go to the bar doesn't mean that it's a good idea for everyone to be doing so. I'm fairly libertarian on drugs, but I do think there is a big difference when it comes to psychedelics. The potential harms aren't only to the person doing it, but for people around them who might be victims of their psychotic break. It's safest if there is someone around to administer a benzodiazepine or antipsychotic if necessary.
    - johndhi 3y ago
      >The potential harms aren't only to the person doing it, but for people around them who might be victims of their psychotic break Fyi research apparently shows that mentally unwell people are more likely to be physically harmful to others as compared with the average. Sounded weird to me but apparently there's some data.

tastyfreeze 3y ago

Sure, it can feel that way if you believe that the war on drugs was started to keep people safe. However, if it was started as a means to persecute "undesireables" or political opponents the current trend seems less questionable.

travisjungroth 3y ago

I mean this sincerely: I think you’re right about this coming from your mood. You haven’t engaged with the actual argument much. It’s pretty reasonable to say things people did in the past were wrong. You can do things from first principles, but that also gets real abstract. Eventually, people need to be for or against specific policies.

fasterik 3y ago

I think we actually did learn things that we didn't know the first time around. We know that it's dangerous when influential researchers go around promoting psychedelics as a panacea like Timothy Leary did. The current wave of researchers seem to be much more responsible in emphasizing an evidence-based approach, the importance of screening for risk factors, and limiting the use of psychedelics to a controlled therapeutic setting.

InCityDreams 3y ago
> and limiting the use of psychedelics to a controlled therapeutic setting. Your other points I understand. This particular one I find controversial as one of the unkowns is what is an ideal setting? I've got friends that will drop a tab, and go for a beer - just as impossible for me as sitting in a 'controlled environment' [therapeutic setting] with a shrink, or a Man-retreat for ex-military types. I'd like to just have easy access to a known quality, and strength of chemical, that I can happily take, wheresoever I prefer.
- fasterik 3y ago
  There are well known risks of psychosis and schizophrenia associated with psychedelics. Just because your friend can drop a tab and go to the bar doesn't mean that it's a good idea for everyone to be doing so. I'm fairly libertarian on drugs, but I do think there is a big difference when it comes to psychedelics. The potential harms aren't only to the person doing it, but for people around them who might be victims of their psychotic break. It's safest if there is someone around to administer a benzodiazepine or antipsychotic if necessary.
  - johndhi 3y ago
    >The potential harms aren't only to the person doing it, but for people around them who might be victims of their psychotic break Fyi research apparently shows that mentally unwell people are more likely to be physically harmful to others as compared with the average. Sounded weird to me but apparently there's some data.