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, Troll) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @09:13AM
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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."