Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday May 31 2015, @12:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the wow-just-look-at-those-colours dept.

James J. H. Rucker, a psychiatrist and honorary lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, has argued in a British Medical Journal (BMJ) article that psychedelics should be reclassified as schedule 2 compounds:

He explains that many trials of psychedelics published before prohibition, in the 1950s and 1960s, suggested "beneficial change in many psychiatric disorders".

However, research ended after 1967. In the UK psychedelic drugs were legally classified as schedule 1 class A drugs - that is, as having "no accepted medical use and the greatest potential for harm, despite the research evidence to the contrary," he writes.

Rucker points out that psychedelics remain more legally restricted than heroin and cocaine. "But no evidence indicates that psychedelic drugs are habit forming; little evidence indicates that they are harmful in controlled settings; and much historical evidence shows that they could have use in common psychiatric disorders."

In fact, recent studies indicate that psychedelics have "clinical efficacy in anxiety associated with advanced cancer, obsessive compulsive disorder, tobacco and alcohol addiction, and cluster headaches," he writes.

And he explains that, at present, larger clinical studies on psychedelics are made "almost impossible by the practical, financial and bureaucratic obstacles" imposed by their schedule 1 classification. Currently, only one manufacturer in the world produces psilocybin for trial purposes, he says, at a "prohibitive" cost of £100,000 for 1 g (50 doses).

[...] He concludes that psychedelics are neither harmful nor addictive compared with other controlled substances, and he calls on the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, "to recommend that psychedelics be reclassified as schedule 2 compounds to enable a comprehensive, evidence based assessment of their therapeutic potential."

[See also: Research into Psychedelics, Shut Down for Decades, is Now Yielding Exciting Results - Ed.]


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 31 2015, @01:12AM

    by Geotti (1146) on Sunday May 31 2015, @01:12AM (#190270) Journal

    LSD opened a supernatural world for us and showed us that we're part of a whole, it enabled us to telepathically communicate with others; psychedelics frees most people from the "mental shackles" that the rest of the "poor souls" in society carry, and makes us understand that most societal and personal problems are brought about by our own ignorance. Psychedelics give us a choice to dispel the illusion or (with time) forget reality and go back to the cave [wikipedia.org]

    Was with you until the NWO bullshit, so I had to FTFY. SCNR, as I felt this to be my sacred duty to rectify the sarcastic tone of your post.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by CRCulver on Sunday May 31 2015, @01:32AM

    by CRCulver (4390) on Sunday May 31 2015, @01:32AM (#190273) Homepage

    Thanks for proving my point. Plato's allegory was a way of advocating for the practice of philosophy, not for using a hallucinogenic substance. If one wants to get the benefits of a clearer worldview, one would be a lot better off doing philosophy while not under the influence of a hallucinogen than taking a substance which cannot give you any more power for rational thought than you already have, and which risks giving you false beliefs. Just because you see it in your trip doesn't mean it's really so.

    (Indeed, possibly due to his ingestion of a hallucinogenic substance as part of the Eleusinian Mysteries, Plato himself was insistent in claiming the existence of transmigration and a rather elaborate metaphysical reality which later philosophers would come to see as very misguided.)

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Geotti on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:35AM

      by Geotti (1146) on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:35AM (#190302) Journal

      if one wants to get the benefits of a clearer worldview, one would be a lot better off doing philosophy while not under the influence of a hallucinogen than taking a substance which cannot give you any more power for rational thought than you already have, and which risks giving you false beliefs. [citation needed]

      It seems likely that you live under the false impression that the only way to achieve true insight is by having a "sober" head, while you ignoring the possibility that a) true "soberness" is a specific state of mind (which can be provoked through the ingestion of psychedelics) b) a "clearer worldview" has as much to do with rational as with emotional, biochemical, psychosomatic, etc. understanding and processes, or, in other words: Just because you think you're sober doesn't mean you really are.
       

      Thanks for proving my point.

      Dito.

      Also,

      Plato himself was insistent in claiming the existence of transmigration and a rather elaborate metaphysical reality which some later (and mostly western) philosophers would come to see as very misguided.

      FTFY.

      A very closed mind you have, of the marvels and beauty of life you can only understand a very small part of, if not change your attitude you will.

      Let me ask you a simple question: do you believe something exists, which is perfect?

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2015, @09:20AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2015, @09:20AM (#190363)

        It seems likely

        If we're talking probability, then it is unlikely that someone will come up with a brilliant idea while under the influence of drugs that they could not have come up with while not under the influence of drugs. It's possible, and I don't think all drug use is bad, but a few examples don't disprove this.

        Let me ask you a simple question: do you believe something exists, which is perfect?

        Perfection is subjective. Someone could view something as being perfect according to their own values.

        • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 31 2015, @05:06PM

          by Geotti (1146) on Sunday May 31 2015, @05:06PM (#190433) Journal

          Perfection is subjective.

          You're rationalizing. There's actually a real answer to this.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @01:12PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @01:12PM (#190678)

            "rationalizing" is just a meaningless buzzword the way you're using it. As I said, perfection is subjective. Therefore, yes, it's possible for something to be perfect to an individual, depending on how "perfection" is even defined.

            I'm not even sure what the point of your question was.

            • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday June 02 2015, @09:02AM

              by Geotti (1146) on Tuesday June 02 2015, @09:02AM (#191074) Journal

              Just because you understand something as a buzzword, doesn't mean it is. You are trying to understand with your head something that can only be experienced. It's similar to describing a piece of music, a painting, sculpture, etc. You can describe what an object (concept in our case) represents using technical (as in context-sensitively-appropriate) vocabulary, but this hardly pays the deserved tribute. Only by experiencing this yourself can you get a glimpse of the marvel and only from a limited amount of perspectives.
              Perfection exists all around you, all the time, but most of the time we're pre-occupied with other thoughts to realize this.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 02 2015, @11:11AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 02 2015, @11:11AM (#191099)

                Just because you understand something as a buzzword, doesn't mean it is.

                Just because you think it isn't, doesn't mean it isn't. Don't try to tell me what my state of mind is or I'll have to do the same to you. You don't actually believe a word you said and agree with me 100%. People try putting forth these "You're rationalizing!" accusations rather than actually getting to the argument at hand, and it's nonsense.

                Perfection exists all around you, all the time, but most of the time we're pre-occupied with other thoughts to realize this.

                What the fuck kind of new age bullshit are you talking about? Perfection is subjective. There is no objective definition of "perfection", because "perfection" doesn't even have an objective, scientific definition. It's subjective, as these things usually are.

                • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday June 02 2015, @12:38PM

                  by Geotti (1146) on Tuesday June 02 2015, @12:38PM (#191114) Journal

                  or I'll have to do the same to you

                  You already did and I responded to that. If you're throwing away the meaning of what I said with such contempt, this is what you get in return.

                   

                  Perfection is subjective. There is no objective definition of "perfection", because "perfection" doesn't even have an objective, scientific definition.

                  So you've never experienced or understood something as truly perfect. That's a valid reply to my question but you weren't the one I was asking.

                  [redacted] are you talking about?

                  About something beyond rational thought but just as valid.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2015, @06:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2015, @06:14PM (#190453)

          Perfection is subjective.

          No its not. Perfect is objective and everybody who looked at it would know it was perfect, which is why there's no such thing. You're thinking of something like "perfect for x", which is subjective.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @01:09PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @01:09PM (#190675)

            It is subjective, since most definitions of "perfect" also use subjective words to describe it.

      • (Score: 2) by CRCulver on Monday June 01 2015, @04:23AM

        by CRCulver (4390) on Monday June 01 2015, @04:23AM (#190547) Homepage

        Again, you only prove my point. On one hand, you seem to be aware that hallucinogenics merely have a physical effect on the brain, they alter one's thoughts through well-known chemical means and can only offer an altered perception of the same physical reality that one experiences without the effect of a hallucinogen. On the other hand, you nonetheless suggest that psychedelics can reveal a supernatural world like the existence of a soul, and you appear to seriously believe in telepathic communication even though there is no experimental evidence for it whatsoever (it would be trivial for a third party to verify the communication of two trippers were it real).

        Instead of credulously accepting what was sees under the effect of a hallucinogen as real, one has a duty to look back at one's trip and consider the possibility that what was experienced was deceptive.

        Plato himself was insistent in claiming the existence of transmigration and a rather elaborate metaphysical reality which some later (and mostly western) philosophers would come to see as very misguided.

        I'm unaware of any philosophers, even non-Western ones, who would hold the specific belief that souls after death pass through seven days in a meadow, and then proceed further to a rainbow shaft of light where a group of goddesses await, and that said souls must eventually drink from a river that induces forgetfulness. Furthermore, Hindu and Buddhist schools of transmigration of the soul usually attempt to defend their belief in rebirth through argumentation, and there is a rich philosophical literature on the subject; they don't just assume that it is something that can be definitely verified through simply ingesting a hallucinogen.

        • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday June 02 2015, @09:38AM

          by Geotti (1146) on Tuesday June 02 2015, @09:38AM (#191082) Journal

          I'm unaware of any philosophers, even non-Western ones, who would hold the specific belief that souls after death pass through [...]

          Thanks, so we were talking about the allegory of the cave and then you take an unrelated argument and try to discredit all his ideas? Basically, this is similar to discussions about RMS, where people try to discredit otherwise valid arguments with unrelated things such as that he didn't wash his socks and bragged about it?
          Also, taking literally something, which is meant metaphorically is dubious IMO.
           

          can only offer an altered perception of the same physical reality that one experiences without the effect of a hallucinogen.

          Just as there are tools to working with matter, there are tools to working with mind and the "supernatural." Some people require a key to open the doors of perception.

          you nonetheless suggest that psychedelics can reveal a supernatural world like the existence of a soul, and you appear to seriously believe in telepathic communication even though there is no experimental evidence for it whatsoever (it would be trivial for a third party to verify the communication of two trippers were it real).

          There's actually enough evidence of telepathy, with and without the use of psychedelics, but of course, it would probably require an extraordinary coincidence to actually prove pre-cognition scientifically, but again, that doesn't mean such things don't exist. There's no way you can disprove as much as there's no way I can prove it to you.
          So, as usual, you are free to believe whatever you want, but know that there's a large community of (very diverse) people, who share very similar beliefs without having ever been in contact or lived in the same or similar societies/having been exposed to similar cultures. There's also the concept of "common trip," which refers to trippers experiencing the same things in the same way, so it is possible to test it, but similar to quantum superposition, such things don't necessarily lend themselves to direct observation.

          Instead of credulously accepting what was sees under the effect of a hallucinogen as real, one has a duty to look back at one's trip and consider the possibility that what was experienced was deceptive.

          I've gotten to understand things that are so mind bending, you would think I'm a madman if I somehow managed to put them in words. You would also be wrong to assume that I just believe everything I see without "due process." The thing is, what I understand means everything and nothing at the same time, or everything about nothing, or the Nothing about everything, so what I could tell you (if I did manage to somehow weave a description around it even for a brief moment) might be meaningless to you, unless your current perspective (state of mind, set & setting, etc.) allows you to realize it.

          You can trust me, or not, but I know what I know. You can continue believing what you think is right. Let me just tell you that there are certain things/concepts/constructs/objects that you can ground yourself on, that represent an absolute truth, or a root/foundation that you can build all remaining logic on. Imagine, you get to know something, so everything suddenly makes sense. (And then you forget about it again ;) )

          You know, some people do recognize the Truth by the glow that shines around it. Maybe you will some day meet one of these people, who could convince you to at least allow the possibility that there is more than meets the (scientific) eye.

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 02 2015, @11:21AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday June 02 2015, @11:21AM (#191102)

            Are you by chance taking lessons from things like this? [sebpearce.com]

            With that said, there's actually enough evidence of a magical pink unicorn living on mars. I've experienced it myself, you see.

            There's no way you can disprove as much as there's no way I can prove it to you.

            Sounds like the "faith" that theistic idiots invoke. It just means you have no good reason to believe it. Boring. But sure, I'll just mindlessly take your word for it as you constantly claim it's true but admit you have no actual evidence for it. Excellent.

            quantum

            My quantum soul is resonating with the universe's quantum consciousness to produce infinite quantum fluctuations.

            You can trust me, or not, but I know what I know.

            Lots of people think they know crazy things. Maybe they do actually believe they know it, but that doesn't mean what they believe is actually true. Especially if they 'discovered' these things while on drugs, the mind tends to play tricks on you.

            I know what I know, because I know it. This is sounding mighty familiar...

            quantum quantum quantum quantum telepathy quantum

            • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday June 02 2015, @12:46PM

              by Geotti (1146) on Tuesday June 02 2015, @12:46PM (#191117) Journal

              Maybe they do actually believe they know it, but that doesn't mean what they believe is actually true.

              That doesn't mean that it's not either. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about your opinion on anything related to empathy.

              I'll just mindlessly take your word for it as you constantly claim it's true but admit you have no actual evidence for it. Excellent.

              Again, fuck off. I put CRCulver's statement right for the in the name of the people actually do know what they're talking about. If you think I'm trying to convince anyone here, that's your problem.

              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 02 2015, @02:06PM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday June 02 2015, @02:06PM (#191138)

                That doesn't mean that it's not either. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about your opinion on anything related to empathy.

                I didn't say that that means it's no true. And empathy isn't the main issue here.

                Again, fuck off. I put CRCulver's statement right for the in the name of the people actually do know what they're talking about.

                What?

                Also, he just left.

                If you think I'm trying to convince anyone here, that's your problem.

                Well, you're the one who posted the new age nonsense. If someone makes a claim they can't back up, I see no reason not to call them out on it.

                • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday June 02 2015, @02:40PM

                  by Geotti (1146) on Tuesday June 02 2015, @02:40PM (#191150) Journal

                  And empathy isn't the main issue here.

                  If you say so, Einstein.

                  What?

                  "I put CRCulver's statement right in the name of the people actually do know what they're talking about."

                  Was hard to find the typo for an emotionally challenged person, I know.

                  Well, you're the one who posted the new age nonsense. If someone makes a claim they can't back up, I see no reason not to call them out on it.

                  I think you're an idiot. If you think I'm trying to convince anyone here, that's your problem.

                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 02 2015, @06:40PM

                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday June 02 2015, @06:40PM (#191222)

                    Was hard to find the typo for an emotionally challenged person, I know.

                    I fail to see why you keep bringing up this empathy and emotion nonsense. Do you prefer to use emotion rather than logic?

                    At any rate, failing to understand a sentence with some typo is hardly a problem of emotion.

                    I think you're an idiot. If you think I'm trying to convince anyone here, that's your problem.

                    Did I say you're trying to convince anyone? You made a post with some new age bullshit, and you were called out on it. That's all there is to it.

                    • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday June 03 2015, @07:36PM

                      by Geotti (1146) on Wednesday June 03 2015, @07:36PM (#191737) Journal

                      I fail to see why you keep bringing up this empathy and emotion nonsense.

                      You fail to see many things. That's your problem.

                      Did I say you're trying to convince anyone?

                      That's what you implied by expecting me to back up whatever I said. As this was not an argument, this request was misplaced. Also you intruded on a conversation.

                      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 03 2015, @10:34PM

                        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday June 03 2015, @10:34PM (#191807)

                        You fail to see many things. That's your problem.

                        Or maybe it's the lack of explanation that is a problem.

                        That's what you implied by expecting me to back up whatever I said.

                        I did not say you're trying to convince anyone. You talked about telepathy and other nonsense, so I asked you to back that up with actual evidence. You may not be trying to convince anyone, but that doesn't mean someone can't ask for evidence.

                        Also you intruded on a conversation.

                        Anyone can reply to any post. If you want a one-on-one chat, you'll have to use something else.

                        • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday June 04 2015, @02:26AM

                          by Geotti (1146) on Thursday June 04 2015, @02:26AM (#191874) Journal

                          Maybe your righteousness is as misplaced as a one-on-one chat? You're demanding information on something you wouldn't need any if you would understand what that information is about in the first place, because the information you demand is as obvious as the earth and the sky, if you know how to see.

                          Anyone can reply to any post, but you can't expect someone to give you an elaborate explanation of anything you request or spend any of their time whenever you whistle.

                          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 04 2015, @03:17AM

                            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday June 04 2015, @03:17AM (#191888)

                            You're demanding information on something you wouldn't need any if you would understand what that information is about in the first place, because the information you demand is as obvious as the earth and the sky, if you know how to see.

                            What was that in reply to? If it's about telepathy and such, then many scientists haven't figured out your method of seeing, either. I suspect it isn't very useful in determining what is true or likely true.

                            Anyone can reply to any post, but you can't expect someone to give you an elaborate explanation of anything you request or spend any of their time whenever you whistle.

                            Well, sure, but I was just seeing if you had any good reason to believe all that new age nonsense. It doesn't seem so, or if you do, you won't share it.