6 ms·

The researchers deserve serious props for undertaking this research in this climate, and whoever approved their study proposals for doing so. The positive effec

The researchers deserve serious props for undertaking this research in this climate, and whoever approved their study proposals for doing so. The positive effects of halucinogens on depressed, dying, & addicted people have been "known" for quite some time but not rigorously tested. Hopefully this is as positive a sign as it seems. EDIT: Here's an example - a meta-analysis in the Journal of Psychopharmacology shows that LSD seems to have a hugely beneficial effect on alcoholism http://www.nature.com/news/lsd-helps-to-treat-alcoholism-1.10200 http://www.nature.com/news/lsd-helps-to-treat-alcoholism-1.1...

dfc 14y ago
I'm curious why you think these researchers deserve more props than any other researchers investigating helping people with terminal illness? And in what climate? now? 2009? 2010?
- GuiA 14y ago
  Despite numerous older studies showing that psychedelics have positive effects in a number of medical cases, there is a very big "anti-psychedelics" climate in the US right now, making it harder to go further with the existing research.
  - dfc 14y ago
    I do not know what you mean by "making it harder to expound on the existing research." Maybe expound is not the right word? EDIT: I understand now. Thanks for being decent about it. I'd love to know what clown downvoted me for not understanding your choice of words.
    - GuiA 14y ago
      Poor word choice on my part, edited for (hopefully) the better. Much appreciated! :)
    - ahoyhere 14y ago
      Expound is the exact right word. Dfc, are you a troll? expound |ikˈspound| verb [ with obj. ] present and explain (a theory or idea) systematically and in detail
      - dfc 14y ago
        Not a troll and no expound was not the right word. The OP has admitted as much. "Making it hard to explain and present existing research" Why would the current climate make it hard to explain or talk about past research? The OP wanted to convey that the current climate makes it hard to move forward with the research and undertake new studies. When you expound on something you are not conducting new studies and moving forward.
        gnosis 14y ago
        Actually, in many circles it is often still taboo to speak positively of any currently illegal drugs. That includes mentioning research studies that found benefits to these drugs. People's careers can be affected if some people with anti-drug prejudices or an excessive concern with seeming "respectable" think you are advocating the use of currently illegal drugs.
        hkolek 14y ago
        In the USA you can't even do any medical research on some substances, like Cannabis, because they're classified as schedule 1. Apparently psilocybin is also a schedule 1 substance [1]. I don't have any words to articulate this mind-boggling stupidity. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_I_controlled_substances http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Sched...
- ahoyhere 14y ago
  Have you heard of "The War On Drugs"?
- eof 14y ago
  Presumably because we live in such an anti-"drug" climate that taking on this type of research could have a presumably negative impact on their careers; not to mention the extra effort to get something like this approved. I don't think the general cultural feelings surrounding hallucinogens has changed so much since 2009?
- theorique 14y ago
  A lot of social and regulatory barriers stand in the way of any medical researcher who wants to use MDMA / mushrooms / LSD and other hallucinogens to help people with end-of-life depression and psychiatric issues. They are to be complimented for persisting in the face of such obstacles.
- betterunix 14y ago
  We live in a political climate where it is considered acceptable to have teams of soldiers attack civilian homes if there is even a suspicion that they are producing, transporting, or distributing the drugs described in this article. Our politicians firmly believe that propaganda promoting such approaches to drug policy should be forced down the throats of grade school children, and that those children should be asked to report their parents' activities to the government in the name of enforcing drug policy. That is a pretty rough political climate for a researcher investigating positive or medical uses for those drugs. There is also the issue of having to be careful not to tell the public how to manufacture these drugs in their kitchens, as Alexander Shulgin discovered after a team of soldiers attacked his lab.
  - dfc 14y ago
    Can you give more info on the soldiers attacking his lab? I have only found references to a raid on his home and lab by the DEA and local LEOs.
    - to3m 14y ago
      "Soldiers" here might not be a technical term.
    - betterunix 14y ago
      If men with assault rifles, body armor, grenades, who use military tactics in their operations are not soldiers, what do you call them? The DEA is a paramilitary force, soldiers in all but name.
      - dfc 14y ago
        I don't know why I did not pick up on that subtext. It must have been the attack component that threw me off. It is nice to see that there are no rhetoric asymmetries in the "war on drugs." "If men with assault rifles, body armor, grenades, who use military tactics in their operations are not soldiers, what do you call them? " Usually a Special Weapons and Tactics team and in Canada I think they are known as Emergency Task Forces. Does the DEA deploy units with fragmentation and/or incendiary grenades?
- jessaustin 14y ago
  RTFA: The closing of the psychedelic mind involved the weaving of a fine-spun stigma and the application of indistinct professional pressure. “A subtle microphysics of power guided scientists away from further work on these compounds,” says Nicolas Langlitz, an anthropologist at the New School who studies psychedelic science. “The allocation of funding, having to guard one’s reputation, approval of research projects, recruitment of test subjects — it all led to a near-total breakdown of academic hallucinogen research.” Before the end of the ’60s, two leading lights in the field would bemoan the fact that interested and capable scientists were “turning their backs on psychedelics for fear of identification with irresponsible researchers.”

dfc 14y ago

I'm curious why you think these researchers deserve more props than any other researchers investigating helping people with terminal illness? And in what climate? now? 2009? 2010?

GuiA 14y ago
Despite numerous older studies showing that psychedelics have positive effects in a number of medical cases, there is a very big "anti-psychedelics" climate in the US right now, making it harder to go further with the existing research.
- dfc 14y ago
  I do not know what you mean by "making it harder to expound on the existing research." Maybe expound is not the right word? EDIT: I understand now. Thanks for being decent about it. I'd love to know what clown downvoted me for not understanding your choice of words.
  - GuiA 14y ago
    Poor word choice on my part, edited for (hopefully) the better. Much appreciated! :)
  - ahoyhere 14y ago
    Expound is the exact right word. Dfc, are you a troll? expound |ikˈspound| verb [ with obj. ] present and explain (a theory or idea) systematically and in detail
    - dfc 14y ago
      Not a troll and no expound was not the right word. The OP has admitted as much. "Making it hard to explain and present existing research" Why would the current climate make it hard to explain or talk about past research? The OP wanted to convey that the current climate makes it hard to move forward with the research and undertake new studies. When you expound on something you are not conducting new studies and moving forward.
      - gnosis 14y ago
        Actually, in many circles it is often still taboo to speak positively of any currently illegal drugs. That includes mentioning research studies that found benefits to these drugs. People's careers can be affected if some people with anti-drug prejudices or an excessive concern with seeming "respectable" think you are advocating the use of currently illegal drugs.
      - hkolek 14y ago
        In the USA you can't even do any medical research on some substances, like Cannabis, because they're classified as schedule 1. Apparently psilocybin is also a schedule 1 substance [1]. I don't have any words to articulate this mind-boggling stupidity. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_I_controlled_substances http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Sched...
ahoyhere 14y ago
Have you heard of "The War On Drugs"?
eof 14y ago
Presumably because we live in such an anti-"drug" climate that taking on this type of research could have a presumably negative impact on their careers; not to mention the extra effort to get something like this approved. I don't think the general cultural feelings surrounding hallucinogens has changed so much since 2009?
theorique 14y ago
A lot of social and regulatory barriers stand in the way of any medical researcher who wants to use MDMA / mushrooms / LSD and other hallucinogens to help people with end-of-life depression and psychiatric issues. They are to be complimented for persisting in the face of such obstacles.
betterunix 14y ago
We live in a political climate where it is considered acceptable to have teams of soldiers attack civilian homes if there is even a suspicion that they are producing, transporting, or distributing the drugs described in this article. Our politicians firmly believe that propaganda promoting such approaches to drug policy should be forced down the throats of grade school children, and that those children should be asked to report their parents' activities to the government in the name of enforcing drug policy. That is a pretty rough political climate for a researcher investigating positive or medical uses for those drugs. There is also the issue of having to be careful not to tell the public how to manufacture these drugs in their kitchens, as Alexander Shulgin discovered after a team of soldiers attacked his lab.
- dfc 14y ago
  Can you give more info on the soldiers attacking his lab? I have only found references to a raid on his home and lab by the DEA and local LEOs.
  - to3m 14y ago
    "Soldiers" here might not be a technical term.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    If men with assault rifles, body armor, grenades, who use military tactics in their operations are not soldiers, what do you call them? The DEA is a paramilitary force, soldiers in all but name.
    - dfc 14y ago
      I don't know why I did not pick up on that subtext. It must have been the attack component that threw me off. It is nice to see that there are no rhetoric asymmetries in the "war on drugs." "If men with assault rifles, body armor, grenades, who use military tactics in their operations are not soldiers, what do you call them? " Usually a Special Weapons and Tactics team and in Canada I think they are known as Emergency Task Forces. Does the DEA deploy units with fragmentation and/or incendiary grenades?
jessaustin 14y ago
RTFA: The closing of the psychedelic mind involved the weaving of a fine-spun stigma and the application of indistinct professional pressure. “A subtle microphysics of power guided scientists away from further work on these compounds,” says Nicolas Langlitz, an anthropologist at the New School who studies psychedelic science. “The allocation of funding, having to guard one’s reputation, approval of research projects, recruitment of test subjects — it all led to a near-total breakdown of academic hallucinogen research.” Before the end of the ’60s, two leading lights in the field would bemoan the fact that interested and capable scientists were “turning their backs on psychedelics for fear of identification with irresponsible researchers.”