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: 2, Troll) by janrinok on Sunday May 31 2015, @09:50AM
I am frequently amazed and filled with joy when I see the dead victims resurrected as the blameworthy drug or alcohol abuser is sent to prison. Perhaps prevention is sometimes better than 'cure'? Do you thing that legalization would increase the amount of drug abuse or reduce it?
The summary, as I pointed out, is not about legalisation, hence the reason I used the quotes around my suggestion.
As far as I can tell, you are not allowed to discharge a weapon in public places in the USA - why not just punish those who accidentally shoot someone? You can be arrested and charged for planning a crime - although no-one has been robbed, attacked or actually suffered any real harm at the time of the arrest. Prevention rather than cure perhaps? If the consequences of your crime are possibly so grave that they cannot be undone, there might be a precedent for taking action sooner rather than later.
I know that you and I will rarely agree, but I do appreciate your reply to my earlier comment.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @11:35AM
I am frequently amazed and filled with joy when I see the dead victims resurrected as the blameworthy drug or alcohol abuser is sent to prison.
I am frequently amazed and filled with joy when I see the dead victims resurrected as the blameworthy terrorist is sent to prison. Perhaps prevention is sometimes better than 'cure'? Maybe the NSA's mass surveillance isn't so bad after all!
Or maybe safety is less important than freedom?
Do you thing that legalization would increase the amount of drug abuse or reduce it?
Not my concern, though considering how easy it is to obtain drugs, I doubt it would be significantly higher; people would be more honest about their drug use, however.
The drug war doesn't work, and never will. But that is a secondary concern of mine. The first concern is freedom to control your own body, as well as the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban drugs (despite nonsensical interpretations of the commerce clause).
As far as I can tell, you are not allowed to discharge a weapon in public places in the USA - why not just punish those who accidentally shoot someone?
Did you fail to see the part where I said that we should punish those who drive dangerously, not just people who cause accidents? It's because the *action* itself greatly increases the probability of actual, physical injury, and it isn't even a mere indirect effect.
As for prevention, I never did claim to be against all forms of prevention, as long as your "prevention" isn't collective punishment or at least just bans actions that are directly harmful or increase the probability of direct harm. For instance, I'm opposed to gun control because banning something because some people abuse it is generally intolerable to me. Merely owning a gun in and of itself does not bring direct harm, so that sort of "prevention" argument wouldn't work for me.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday May 31 2015, @01:13PM
I haven't seen any evidence that the NSAs surveillance has prevented any attacks being committed. I have seen verifiable proof that better policing of bad drivers, people who drink and drive, and those that abuse drugs and drive does reduce the number of traffic accidents and the deaths caused by them. The freedom that you describe is only of any value to those who are alive to enjoy it; the freedom of others to live without the fear of being killed on the road by someone under the influence doesn't appear to be a freedom that is worth keeping for you. There are enough deaths due to genuine accidents. We don't need to add more dangers just so that we can proclaim how free we are.
That may be the case where you live, but obtaining psychedelics is not as easy as that elsewhere. Federal government rights or otherwise is only applicable to your own country. Elsewhere governments are actually elected partly because of their promises to combat specific crimes. Whether they are actually effective in doing this is the subject discussion another time.
No, I didn't, but reducing the number of those who will potentially be driving dangerously in the future because of the 'acceptability' of drugs would also help.
Arguing about gun control is, for me, pointless. If you even own a weapon in Europe without the appropriate license it is an offence, and the number that qualify to hold a licence is very much smaller than in the US. The only 2 usual justifications here are being a member of a target shooting club, or for hunting/pest control. Neither give the licensee permission for carrying a weapon in a public place (which might still be a remote location but not private land) unless they are travelling to or from the shooting venue or hunting area, and the weapon must be cased and secured. Having a weapon for protection is not an acceptable justification for the vast majority of people. Your right to carry weapons is enshrined in your constitution. That's fine by me but it doesn't lead me to think that we should adopt the same thing here. But the point that I was making is that many laws are in place to prevent crime from occurring, not only to enable those that have commited a crime to be punished. It might not meet with your own personal approval but many countries, including the USA, find it a perfectly acceptable way of reducing crime. I do not feel that our freedoms are curtailed by having such laws, they usually result in a benefit for the majority.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @01:53PM
I haven't seen any evidence that the NSAs surveillance has prevented any attacks being committed.
But if it did, then it would be alright? Is there any level of
I have seen verifiable proof that better policing of bad drivers, people who drink and drive, and those that abuse drugs and drive does reduce the number of traffic accidents and the deaths caused by them.
So you want to stop people who drive dangerously, just like I suggested?
The freedom that you describe is only of any value to those who are alive to enjoy it
Reminds me of Chris Christie's idiotic statements, so you're already not in very good company. Not infringing upon people's fundamental liberties has value in and of itself, because even if we did die (which we won't, as there will be plenty of people who will be fine), at least we would die knowing that we stuck to our principles and lived freely. But that's absurd, because a grand majority won't die just because we actually respect people's freedoms, and you're infringing upon the liberties of them all when you put safety above freedom. As for it only being of value to those who are alive to enjoy it, even if that were true and going down in the name of freedom carried no value, that would still leave billions of people alive to enjoy their freedoms.
Following your line of logic, no government restriction would be too much for you as long as it worked. Surveillance equipment in everyone's homes, with seemingly magical algorithms that decide whether intervention is necessary? You bet. As long as it catches more criminals, all is well, because we have to protect people's fragile minds or else they might live in fear!
the freedom of others to live without the fear of being killed on the road by someone under the influence doesn't appear to be a freedom that is worth keeping for you.
That's because it isn't. Just like you can't take away someone's freedom of speech just because you're offended, you can't take away someone's other rights simply because you're a coward who chooses to live in fear. Life has risks, and freedom brings some risks with it as well. Learn to come to terms with those risks, and mitigate them in ways that don't infringe upon people's fundamental liberties. This shouldn't even be a discussion.
Why is this "fear" angle so damn popular when it's so obviously illogical? Are we seriously going to sacrifice freedoms so people can feel safe (Otherwise, why specifically mention fear itself?)? Well, we already are, so it's a pointless question. Fear can be illogical; people are terribly afraid of terrorists and less afraid of things that are much greater threats to them.
That may be the case where you live, but obtaining psychedelics is not as easy as that elsewhere.
Or other drugs.
We don't need to add more dangers just so that we can proclaim how free we are.
I'll accept any risks that legalized drugs might bring. People who care about freedom tend to do that.
But I agree. We don't "need" to add more dangers.
Elsewhere governments are actually elected partly because of their promises to combat specific crimes.
Whereas I am saying that it should not be a crime at all to take these drugs.
No, I didn't, but reducing the number of those who will potentially be driving dangerously in the future because of the 'acceptability' of drugs would also help.
Banning drugs is unacceptable to me; the ends don't justify the means. Focus on education and rehabilitation efforts if you want to mitigate the issue, not more failed drug war nonsense.
But the point that I was making is that many laws are in place to prevent crime from occurring
And for the ones that don't meet my standards, they are dead wrong. If you ban an entire technology/substance merely because it could be abused, chances are you've already screwed up. The ends (preventing crime) do not justify the means (taking away our freedoms). On the other hand, if they outlaw actions that are necessarily directly harmful to others, or increase the probability of direct harm coming to others, that is another thing entirely. That distinction needs to be made.
It might not meet with your own personal approval but many countries, including the USA, find it a perfectly acceptable way of reducing crime.
Every single country in the world has problems that need to be fixed. This mentality is just another problem that needs to be fixed.
Many countries are authoritarian hellholes that practice censorship, have no freedom of religion, treat women horribly, or just murder their citizens for little to no reason. So what? Am I supposed to be convinced that those things are good just because many countries find it perfectly acceptable? I bet you'll find they use similar propaganda ("It keeps us safe.", "It keeps the order.", etc.) when justifying this nonsense. I'll go against every last country in the world if every last country in the world is doing evil.
I do not feel that our freedoms are curtailed by having such laws, they usually result in a benefit for the majority.
Non sequitur. Just because it supposedly benefits the majority does not mean the laws are ethical or do not impact freedom. Countries should have measures in place to protect the freedoms of the minority from the whims of the ignorant majority.
I've noticed that authoritarians like to argue that their restrictions on our freedoms aren't really restrictions on freedoms because we never had those freedoms at all. They essentially redefine what "freedom" means so they can appear less authoritarian.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday May 31 2015, @02:55PM
No, I didn't say that. It is unacceptable intrusion for many reasons. However, it doesn't even do what it set out to do. Policing of our roads uses many technologies that work very well, are not considered here to be an intrusion, but most certainly wouldn't meet with your approval. Many police cars in the UK are fitted with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). They are alerted when a vehicle is observed by the in-vehicle cameras which is not taxed, hasn't completed the necessary technical inspections, or has no insurance identified to a specific driver. Such vehicles are stopped. If the driver is able to show that the ANPR database is incorrect (vehicle taxed in the last few days, driver has insurance elsewhere etc) he/she is free to continue. Otherwise the offence is penalised appropriately. This is significantly reducing the number of uninsured, unlicensed, untaxed vehicle on the road. Most people see that as a good thing. I'm sure that those who have been penalised for an offence will view it differently.
I answered that in my previous post - yes. But I would also like to keep the number of potential dangerous drivers from getting to the point where they are actually endangering others. Making drug abuse legal will not do this. Limiting the number of people (however incomplete that might be) will help.
I won't, and my reasoning has nothing to do with freedom, other than the freedom to be free from idiots who take drugs and drive cars.
Because that is your own personal preference? Society and government is about doing the best for as many people as possible, not just for those who share your views. Legalizing psychedelics for personal use (i.e. outside medical control) offers no benefits to society as a whole, but does have a number of negative consequences. Permitting them for research and medical treatments where appropriate does have benefits.
We agree on this. It doesn't follow that they should also be legalized.
And your solution is to remove all laws that you do not like?
Nor does it automatically prove that they aren't. It is simply that our views of what is within the acceptable boundaries or outside of it differ.
Many western countries do this as well as have laws against drug abuse. You are implying that the majority are ignorant because their views do not accord with your own. I would need to be convinced of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, I will have to leave this discussion - simply because I am in a different tz and I have other things that I need to do. We will only ever solve problems when we look at them from different viewpoints. I often like to try to do this, particularly at weekends. It always makes me re-examine my own values and helps me to see the opposing viewpoint. You have (again) given me a robust argument and made me think. We may never agree, but I appreciate hearing your opinion. Thank you.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:21PM
No, I didn't say that. It is unacceptable intrusion for many reasons.
What about the freedom of others to live without the fear of being killed by terrorists or other baddies?
Many police cars in the UK are fitted with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR).
Which I have an issue with because they're mass surveillance devices that can identify people and likely report to a central location. The only thing that sounds different from similar things in the US is that these are on police cars and probably aren't as numerous as the license plate readers they install everywhere. In general, though, this is a bad idea because it gives the government too much information about people's activities; I seriously doubt they aren't storing that information, after all. People should have privacy from mass surveillance even in public places.
I'm sure that those who have been penalised for an offence will view it differently.
People who care about privacy will also see it differently.
I won't, and my reasoning has nothing to do with freedom, other than the freedom to be free from idiots who take drugs and drive cars.
Have you considered starting your own authoritarian country, then? You could have all the mass surveillance, drug laws, censorship, and asset forfeiture that you want, as long as staying is voluntary.
There is no legitimate freedom to not have to take risks at the expense of our actual freedoms.
Because that is your own personal preference? Society and government is about doing the best for as many people as possible, not just for those who share your views.
The majority don't and should not have absolute power, even if it's in their best interests. Maybe enslaving some minority would help out a majority of people. Would that be alright, then? No, because it violates the fundamental liberties of the minority.
I would think that, in the 21st century, people would have realized the value of freedom, especially a freedom as basic as owning your own body. I guess not.
Legalizing psychedelics for personal use (i.e. outside medical control) offers no benefits to society as a whole, but does have a number of negative consequences.
It has no benefits because you've decided so? For one thing, you wouldn't have to spend millions or billions on trying to stop people from taking the drugs; there's one benefit. More importantly, the government wouldn't be controlling people's bodies and people would therefore have more freedom; that's another benefit. Two benefits right there.
We agree on this. It doesn't follow that they should also be legalized.
But it follows that they should be legalized from the rest of what I said, which is that the ends don't justify the means, and any measures for mitigating the harm should not impact people's liberties.
And your solution is to remove all laws that you do not like?
My solution is to remove all laws that violate people's fundamental liberties. Mass surveillance has to go. Censorship has to go. Restrictions on abortion and drug use have to go. Warrantless surveillance has to go. Things such as the TSA have to go. And so on. The goal of any country should be to maximize freedom as much as possible. But I see many countries that only pay lip service to freedom; they don't really care about it.
Nor does it automatically prove that they aren't.
I didn't say that it isn't. Something can benefit the majority and be ethical. Something can also benefit the majority and be unethical. Assuming that violating people's fundamental liberties could benefit the majority, which I don't believe; it just corrupts them.
Many western countries do this as well as have laws against drug abuse. You are implying that the majority are ignorant because their views do not accord with your own. I would need to be convinced of that.
Well, if they do not respect freedom, what else are they but ignorant? Many people in just about every country claim to be "free", but that does not appear to mean much to them if they are willing to sacrifice their freedoms to obtain more safety.