Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday August 24 2020, @12:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the Yo-Ho-Ho-It's-Magic dept.

After Legal Win, What's Next for Magic Mushrooms?:

On August 4, Canada's Health Minister Patty Hajdu granted, by way of a Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, permission for four terminally-ill Canadians to consume psychedelic drugs. The decision comes after months of careful maneuvering by TheraPsil, a Canadian non-profit seeking to treat end-of-life distress with psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms.

Dr. Bruce Tobin, a B.C.-based psychotherapist and TheraPsil's founder and chair, called the decision a game-changer. "It will contribute a whole new class of pharmacological tools and resources to the profession," he said. "Those of us who have been veterans in the field of clinical psychology understand all too well that there's just a very wide range of patient cases that the state-of-the-art isn't up to treating very well."

While the current exemption applies only to the approved patients seeking treatment for end-of-life anxiety and depression, TheraPsil's ultimate goal is legalized clinical access to medical-grade psilocybin within Canada's existing public healthcare framework.

[...] So far, the most credible applications of psychedelic medicine appear in the therapeutic treatments foregrounded by groups like TheraPsil. In Oregon, voters will see statewide access to legalized psilocybin therapy as an item on the November ballot. The Yes On IP34 initiative is petitioning the Oregon Health Authority to create a licensing system that regulates the use of psilocybin by trained practitioners. The movement is spearheaded by Tom and Sheri Eckert, husband-and-wife therapists and founders of the Oregon Psilocybin Society. "Psilocybin therapy is not a panacea," says Sheri, "but it's pretty unique in its potential to address a spectrum of mental health issues like depression, anxiety, and some addictions."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @12:45AM (27 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @12:45AM (#1040969)

    Don't be a bigot, support decriminalizing illicit drugs for the mentally ill. [voteyeson110.org] What could possibly go wrong?

  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @12:51AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @12:51AM (#1040971)

    How much in big pharma stocks do you own? Hoping to keep the gravy train of SSRI prescriptions going?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:32AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:32AM (#1040991)

      I own zero pharma stocks am a former recreational drug user and still smoke weed on occasion.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:41AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:41AM (#1040993)

        You have a reliable source for that?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @05:40AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @05:40AM (#1041054)

          To be fair, that describes tens or hundreds of thousands of mid-'90s raver kids.

          And '80s raver kids. And '00s raver kids.

          There's been a lot of them, is what I'm saying.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by dry on Monday August 24 2020, @12:56AM (20 children)

    by dry (223) on Monday August 24 2020, @12:56AM (#1040973) Journal

    Less people in jail and instead working. Police able to use resources to hunt down murderers, rapists and such. Drug addicts not having to steal to support their habit.
    Unluckily the same people who figure 176,000 dead Americans is fine, hate the idea of people being able to manage their pain, whether physical or mental. I believe they call themselves pro-life.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Monday August 24 2020, @01:10AM (10 children)

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday August 24 2020, @01:10AM (#1040982)

      We're having a referendum on legalising pot at our election in October and if you listened to the anti legalise arguments you would think we were voting to irredicate it completely from the whole country.

      By most measures something like 25% of our population smoke pot at least occasionally, but apparently they're not able to make their own decisions, and must continue to be potential criminals.

      Canada are going to begin a conversation about decriminalising all drugs soon which is what Portugal did 20 years ago with great results.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:39AM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:39AM (#1040992)

        You assume people will behave responsibly? The ultra-legalization argument is to make all drugs free and those self-medicating a mental health condition will become increasingly psychotic until they overdose on meth or heroin. See also "eugenics".

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 24 2020, @01:54AM (3 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 24 2020, @01:54AM (#1040995) Journal

          It doesn't matter a helluva lot whether people use their drugs "responsibly" or not. In a free country, you make your own decision. If - I say IF - and when a druggie breaks a law (burglary, robbery, murder, whatever) then you deal with that offense. If the druggie needs/wants help, then he can ask. Meanwhile, everyone else who wants to use crazy mushrooms responsibly may do so.

          You may wish to see yourself as saving people from themselves, but that is little more than a rationalization for being an authoritarian asshole.

          • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday August 24 2020, @03:59AM (2 children)

            by Mykl (1112) on Monday August 24 2020, @03:59AM (#1041034)

            I agree that there is a bit of authoritarianism involved here, however won't you think of the children? [youtube.com]

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 24 2020, @04:10AM (1 child)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 24 2020, @04:10AM (#1041037) Journal

              Sorry, no. That line of reasoning leads to a slippery slope, where everything is banned. The gun grabbers are already using it in their campaign. Slide down that slope long enough, and sex will be banned in any county where children are found, and of course, soon enough, there will be no more children.

              • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday August 24 2020, @04:43AM

                by Mykl (1112) on Monday August 24 2020, @04:43AM (#1041044)

                Slide down that slope long enough ... soon enough, there will be no more children.

                If there are no children, then no children can be harmed. Problem solved!

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Monday August 24 2020, @02:24AM (1 child)

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday August 24 2020, @02:24AM (#1041002)

          The ultra-legalization argument is to make all drugs free...

          No, it's not, and "ultra-legalization" (whatever the hell that means) is not the same as decriminalisation. Once again, Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001 and their experience has been entirely positive.

          If heroin was legal (for instance) people would not die from overdosing on it, because it would be possible to regulate it properly. Heroin addicts would have jobs, just like everyone else, they also wouldn't rob people to feed their habit.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:47PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:47PM (#1041126)

            > their experience has been entirely positive.

            Odd, I thought HIV infections (that their decriminalization was intended to reduce) increased?

            > If heroin was legal (for instance) people would not die from overdosing on it

            Wrong [mentalfloss.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @07:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @07:43PM (#1041300)

        So what? How many people drink? Bring back prohibition!

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Monday August 24 2020, @11:47PM (1 child)

        by sjames (2882) on Monday August 24 2020, @11:47PM (#1041394) Journal

        It's funny to me that many of the same people who recoil in horror at a law that you must wear a mask when in public for the duration of the pandemic or face a small fine are all-in for a law that you must abstain from hallucinogens in all contexts forever or spend years in prison, even if they might control suicide headaches or otherwise untreatable depression.

        More laws for thee but none for me.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday August 25 2020, @12:45AM

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday August 25 2020, @12:45AM (#1041405)

          Legislating morality is a common christian thing.

          We decided to stop prosecuting homosexuals in the early 1980's and the christians told us it would soon be compulsory, but it is still not.

          We stopped prosecuting prostitutes (because why bother? It's not like prosecuting them reduced the demand) and the christians told us pimps would be recruiting your daughter at the school gate, but that didn't happen either.

          Now they're telling us that something 25% of the population admits to doing at least occasionaly will lead to a mental health crisis.

          Why would anyone believe them at this point?

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:19AM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:19AM (#1040987)

      Bring back the asylums, get the mentals off the streets and then we can talk about drug policy.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 24 2020, @02:12AM (7 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 24 2020, @02:12AM (#1040998) Journal

        Sounds good, doesn't it? Lock up the loonies. But, do you know why the liberals got the support to shut the asylums down? It wasn't just the money saved. Do some internet searches for the abuse that was happening behind the doors of those asylums. Maybe some more searches to see how police and family members abused the system to have someone locked up who never needed to be institutionalized. The Kennedy family has their own skeleton in the closet - her name was Rosemary. Locked up in secrecy, and kept out of public view, because the family was embarrassed - a common reason to have someone institutionalized.

        I am one who believes the institutions should have been overhauled, and left in place. A lot of people should have gone to prison, to be replaced by people who cared, and laws should have been written to prevent so many being committed against their will. But, we have what we have, because of corruption.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Monday August 24 2020, @02:26AM (5 children)

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday August 24 2020, @02:26AM (#1041003)

          But, do you know why the liberals got the support to shut the asylums down?

          First time I've heard Reagan called a liberal.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 24 2020, @02:39AM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 24 2020, @02:39AM (#1041009) Journal

            Liberals wanted the institutions shut down for human rights reasons. Conservatives wanted them shut down for financial reasons, including that whole Prison for Profit scheme that is still going on today. As stated above, I think the system should have had a thorough shaking up to fix all the corruption, and to ensure humane treatment of those who needed the system.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:51PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:51PM (#1041127)

              > to ensure humane treatment of those who needed the system

              Allowing loonies to run roughshod through society is inhumane, that's why we need to bring asylums back.

          • (Score: 2) by epitaxial on Monday August 24 2020, @05:10PM (2 children)

            by epitaxial (3165) on Monday August 24 2020, @05:10PM (#1041186)

            Reagan is a liberal compared to the current Republican party.

            • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday August 24 2020, @08:20PM (1 child)

              by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday August 24 2020, @08:20PM (#1041313)

              Reagan was a murderous scumbag who should have ended his life in prison.

              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 25 2020, @11:19AM

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday August 25 2020, @11:19AM (#1041548) Homepage
                Remind me which president didn't bomb the fuck out of nameless faceless darkies overseas?
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @06:58AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @06:58AM (#1041062)

          cf. Bedlam.

          The asylum, not the word coined for it.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @02:27AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @02:27AM (#1041006)

    The drugs you need are easily obtained by visiting a psychiatrist.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2020, @01:08PM (#1041113)

      The drugs you need are easily obtained by visiting a psychiatrist.

      Nope. I don't know any psychiatrist who can get me this [leafly.com], this [leafly.com], this [wholesalebud.ca] or this [weedmaps.com].

      More's the pity.

      And no, I'm not the same AC to whom you replied. And yes, I deliberately ignored your (weak) sarcasm.