SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Monday August 24 2020, @01:10AM (10 children)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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
> 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
So what? How many people drink? Bring back prohibition!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Monday August 24 2020, @11:47PM (1 child)
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
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?