Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Source: https://www.inverse.com/article/31461-ibogaine-cure-addiction
In West Africa, the roots of a native shrub contain a psychoactive substance called ibogaine. In small doses, ibogaine produces a mild euphoric effect somewhat comparable to other stimulant plants, like khat in the Horn of Africa or piri piri in the Amazon. But in large doses, its psychedelic effects are extraordinary.
[...] In Brazil, which has no such crisis, Gomes and his colleagues work with patients addicted to (predominately) crack cocaine. Though they'll meet with their patients a number of times, they'll administer ibogaine to each person only once. Speaking at the MAPS Psychedelic Science Conference in California late last month, Gomes said most people he sees are addicts for whom traditional therapy and the various Anonymous programs have failed. They tend to be impatient with the precursor meetings and adherence to controlled settings, wanting mostly to get the drug, take it, and leave cured.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:07AM (1 child)
What amazes me is that as loose as the criteria are, the DEA still has to cheat them. Schedule I is supposed to be for things with no accepted medical use. However, where legal, doctors prescribe marijuana for various conditions while remaining in good standing with various professional organizations, so it cannot be schedule I without cheating.
Hardly a surprise though, the drug warriors have a long history of lying, cheating, and stealing.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:31AM
By my reading of the Controlled Substances Act [wikipedia.org], all 3 criteria have to be met for the listing of a drug to be valid. Instead, we have drugs on Schedule I that meet a whopping 0 of the 3 criteria (depending on
yourthe DEA's interpretation, of course).It looks even worse when you compare the schedules:
Schedule I finding C: "There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."
Schedule II finding C: "Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence."
1C isn't merely broadly interpreted or something, it is clearly an escalation from 2C. You could easily throw many of the Schedule I drugs into the broader definitions of Schedule II. Let's say cannabis may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. Cool: You can easily find studies that back up negative mental effects attributed to cannabis use, and yes, even "addiction". But "lack of accepted safety"? Clearly Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama managed to recover from their cannabis use [wikipedia.org]. It wasn't like they were snorting hydrochloric acid.
It's no wonder trust in government is so low. At least in earlier decades, the public was anti-legalization [pewresearch.org]. Now there's no longer any excuse for such a blatantly biased interpretation of the law. The 70s were fucked but we are still hearing the same old lies 40-50 years later.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]