SoylentNews

Researcher Argues Psychedelics Should be Reclassified

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

takyon writes:

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

• Re:Support legalization, hate to hear users' stori Re:Support legalization, hate to hear users' stori (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Sunday May 31 2015, @02:49PM

  by CoolHand (438) on Sunday May 31 2015, @02:49PM (#190409) Journal

  I would support 'legalization' if there was a way of preventing those who wish to use 'soft drugs' from driving. Soft drugs might not harm the user, but their use can shatter the lives of others. Yes, I also think that alcohol use is a problem - the deaths that result indirectly from it, the additional cost of healthcare to us all, and the lives that are affected by someone who has used alcohol but doesn't know how to use a little bit of self control. Drink and take drugs at home, as you have suggested

  So, are you suggesting that we ban alcohol (which is really a "soft drug"), since some people can't control themselves from driving under it's influence? I would posit that most users of other soft drugs are more able to control their actions than those under the influence of alcohol, and therefore would have less chance of driving under the influence. Also, it's likely that cannabis impairment is far less likely [foxnews.com][foxnews.com] to cause major impairment in drivers than alcohol. Personally, I'm in favor of legalization of all drugs, but at the very least I think cannabis needs leagalized, and keeping it illegal (as well as the decades long campaign against it by government) should be a crime in itself. If there was one "soft drug" that should be legal it should be cannabis, not alcohol. If there was one "soft drug" that should be illegal it should probably be alcohol. (but we've been down that road before haven't we?)...

  --
  Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		2

• Re:Support legalization, hate to hear users' stori (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:06PM

  by janrinok (52) on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:06PM (#190415) Journal

  I certainly do not support the the easy availability of alcohol to those who have evidently already drunk to much, the result of which leaves some town and city centres no-go areas for normal families. I cannot support the cost of the ambulances to ferry drunks to hospital (because we have a duty of care), the abuse (both verbal and physical) on the medical staff who are trying to help them, the tying up of a much needed hospital bed by someone who cannot manage their drinking, the cost of the physical damage to property caused by those that cannot control themselves, and the cost of policing the fights resulting from excessive alcohol consumption. In my first comment, I did point out that I have no problem with people drinking as much as they wish at home and if people want to take soft drugs in private then I have no particular issue with that. However, when the behaviour of a minority begins affecting the lives of everyone else then something has to be done to redress the situation. I haven't got the answer to that conundrum. But, in the case of drugs, I do not see legalisation of drug abuse improving the situation.

  Parent