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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Interesting) by KGIII on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:51AM

    by KGIII (5261) on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:51AM (#190306) Journal

    People who want drugs can already get drugs. If they could not then there would be no "drug problem." There is no real scarcity and people are not swayed by the negative legal ramifications they may encounter. The illicitness is one of the attractions for some.

    I am in favor of legalization of all drugs for consenting adults. Taking the criminal aspect from distribution and possession will likely mean a large reduction in crime and far fewer people being incarcerated. The money they used to spend on the War on Drugs can now be spent on education and rehabilitation - there is likely enough to even provide those trying to shake addiction with a temporary social net. The quality assurance factor should, alone, be motivation if not for the absolute certainty of increased monetary rewards for local, state, and federal governments.

    The idea is that people would be free to ingest drugs but there would be a clear education program that says that doing so has certain ramifications that should be considered beforehand. Nobody is going to go out and start shooting heroin because, hey, it is legal. Again, those who want drugs can get them. You may not be unaware of this but I can almost certainly assure you that you are no more than two (maybe three) people away from being able to acquire 'hard' drugs.

    We are entitled to freedom - we are not entitled to complete liberty in a society. Thus we must make some logical choices... This subject needs to be reconsidered by our legislatures.

    This is a generic you and not you specifically. I only wish to demonstrate the difference between freedoms and liberties.

    I am free to kill you, I am not at liberty to do so. (There is nothing stopping me from killing someone, there are definite and severe repercussions for doing so.)

    As a society we put our liberties into a collective pot and then withdraw them (as rights or, simply, liberties) to match our stated ideals and political beliefs via legislation. (Most of the time we do not give up our freedoms. People conflate the two words when they do not mean the same in reality and this distinction is important to discuss the subject succinctly.) I think we need decriminalize the right to put into our body what we wish -- so long as we do not harm anyone. We already have penalties for harming someone else. I strongly believe that this liberty should only be granted to those who have reached the age of majority and that we should heavily penalize those caught distributing these substances to minors.

    Should this come to pass there will be a statistical increase in reported use. This will be, largely, due to people being honest as it is no longer a crime. Employers could still, obviously, test for the substances with urine screening or sweat tests BUT I think that mere presence of the alkaloids should not be a just cause for dismissal unless they can prove use/intoxication on company time. I guess I would allow them to deny employment due to a failed screening but I dislike it - I do not have to like it, it just has to be good enough as perfect is not attainable.

    Sorry for the novella but this does not fit onto a postcard easily and including all the information is important as my verbiage could be confusing to some. I have a difficult time being clear, it seems, though it seems clear to me. I tend to be verbose because of this as I want to ensure I have given as much information as I can to make comprehension greater and the misunderstandings fewer.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @09:13AM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday May 31 2015, @09:13AM (#190361)

    I am in favor of legalization of all drugs for consenting adults.

    What about consenting non-adults? What about consenting adults who are as shortsighted as many believe children to be (i.e. the majority)? Someone's brain not being fully developed does not prevent them from making good decisions, and in fact, many would say taking drugs is foolish and shortsighted to begin with. But, naturally, we have to Save the Children.

    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday May 31 2015, @04:57PM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday May 31 2015, @04:57PM (#190430) Journal

      What about Portugal?

      Glenn Greenwald debating GWB's Drug Czar (and grinding him into pulp): https://vimeo.com/32110912 [vimeo.com]

      For those with less time:

      If someone is found in the possession of less than a 10-day supply of anything from marijuana to heroin, he or she is sent to a three-person Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, typically made up of a lawyer, a doctor and a social worker. The commission recommends treatment or a minor fine; otherwise, the person is sent off without any penalty. A vast majority of the time, there is no penalty.

      Fourteen years after decriminalization, Portugal has not been run into the ground by a nation of drug addicts. In fact, by many measures, it's doing far better than it was before.

      http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening [mic.com]

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @05:33PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday May 31 2015, @05:33PM (#190441)

        In other words, drugs aren't fully legal (just decriminalized), and the "marijuana to heroin" part makes it sound like not even all drugs have that sort of legal acceptance. Not good enough.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @06:25AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @06:25AM (#190578)

          I don't understand your point. As I understand your post, you want drugs to be illegal because some people make bad choices and kids could be hurt. Or maybe it was an unclear attempt at sarcasm meant to imply that you think all drugs should be legal. Either way -- I'm confused now.

          As for Portugal's decriminalization, it isn't actually allowed to make drugs legal due to treaty obligations with the US (one of the things GG points out in the video I referenced along with the side note that small countries have to abide by their treaties) so it did the next best thing and decriminalized drugs. They're still technically illegal, but there is no punishment (at least if you have less than a 10 day supply on you). The upside has been reduced drug usage by young people, reduced HIV, and a bunch of other positives listed in the article and in the GG debate.

          (can't login to post during site update, but I'm hemocyanin above)

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 01 2015, @08:00AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday June 01 2015, @08:00AM (#190609)

            I don't understand your point. As I understand your post, you want drugs to be illegal because some people make bad choices and kids could be hurt. Or maybe it was an unclear attempt at sarcasm meant to imply that you think all drugs should be legal. Either way -- I'm confused now.

            I want all drugs to be legal.

            As for Portugal's decriminalization, it isn't actually allowed to make drugs legal due to treaty obligations with the US (one of the things GG points out in the video I referenced along with the side note that small countries have to abide by their treaties) so it did the next best thing and decriminalized drugs.

            That's a damn shame. These treaties are really harmful to democracy.

    • (Score: 1) by KGIII on Monday June 01 2015, @05:35AM

      by KGIII (5261) on Monday June 01 2015, @05:35AM (#190564) Journal

      All adults, those who have reached the age of majority as defined by their state, should be entitled to do with their body as they wish so long as they do not harm another. This is my opinion on the subject. All means all. Do not do nothing, perfection is the enemy of good.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Sunday May 31 2015, @06:59PM

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 31 2015, @06:59PM (#190462) Journal

    The ONLY reason I'm in favor of some drugs being illegal is to prevent them being advertised. So I'm in favor of a 50 cent fine for sale, possession, or use, but 15 year sentence for "advertising for sale".

    I'd really rather just make them legal, but then you couldn't easily prevent advertising. And I'd include alcohol and tobacco among the covered drugs.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 1) by KGIII on Monday June 01 2015, @05:38AM

      by KGIII (5261) on Monday June 01 2015, @05:38AM (#190565) Journal

      I can agree with that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 01 2015, @01:17PM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday June 01 2015, @01:17PM (#190681)

      A 15 year sentence for speech, which would be a complete violation of the first amendment in the US (regardless of nonsensical court interpretations of the constitution). It's government censorship regardless, which is intolerable. If someone chooses to do drugs because they saw an advertisement, that's their choice.

      And you seem to be saying we should continue to allow the government to take control of people's bodies until someone can figure out a solution to the advertising 'problem'. I don't think keeping unjust restrictions around to prevent bad things from happening is something a free country would do.