SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2015, @09:20AM
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
It is subjective, since most definitions of "perfect" also use subjective words to describe it.