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) 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.