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 Geotti on Wednesday June 03 2015, @07:36PM
I fail to see why you keep bringing up this empathy and emotion nonsense.
You fail to see many things. That's your problem.
Did I say you're trying to convince anyone?
That's what you implied by expecting me to back up whatever I said. As this was not an argument, this request was misplaced. Also you intruded on a conversation.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 03 2015, @10:34PM
You fail to see many things. That's your problem.
Or maybe it's the lack of explanation that is a problem.
That's what you implied by expecting me to back up whatever I said.
I did not say you're trying to convince anyone. You talked about telepathy and other nonsense, so I asked you to back that up with actual evidence. You may not be trying to convince anyone, but that doesn't mean someone can't ask for evidence.
Also you intruded on a conversation.
Anyone can reply to any post. If you want a one-on-one chat, you'll have to use something else.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday June 04 2015, @02:26AM
Maybe your righteousness is as misplaced as a one-on-one chat? You're demanding information on something you wouldn't need any if you would understand what that information is about in the first place, because the information you demand is as obvious as the earth and the sky, if you know how to see.
Anyone can reply to any post, but you can't expect someone to give you an elaborate explanation of anything you request or spend any of their time whenever you whistle.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 04 2015, @03:17AM
You're demanding information on something you wouldn't need any if you would understand what that information is about in the first place, because the information you demand is as obvious as the earth and the sky, if you know how to see.
What was that in reply to? If it's about telepathy and such, then many scientists haven't figured out your method of seeing, either. I suspect it isn't very useful in determining what is true or likely true.
Anyone can reply to any post, but you can't expect someone to give you an elaborate explanation of anything you request or spend any of their time whenever you whistle.
Well, sure, but I was just seeing if you had any good reason to believe all that new age nonsense. It doesn't seem so, or if you do, you won't share it.