Mind Altering Drugs Thread - Therapy, Legality

[Sci-2]

I don't have any problem with the research. I guess I just assumed that LSD research and the like would be linked w/ disorders more closely linked with the mind.

Well that link to the NYU cancer anxiety study had some preliminary results noting the increased acceptance and peace with terminal illness after taking shrooms.

I think we haven't even begun to mine the potential benefits of mind altering drugs in a therapeutic environment.

[Phaing]

All kidding aside, I think its pretty ridiculous that a study of this kind could be blocked, or would be blocked.

Must be the same blockheads that support Monsanto's campaign to prevent GMOs from being labeled, or who think that its no biggie that the autism rate has jumped from one in 30,000 to one in 150 since they started drugging children in schools.

"...Not with a bang, but with a whimper"

[Galactus]

I suspect the study was blocked due to flawed methodology (or simply other issues, like getting the things in a proper way) rather than anything else.

I'd not be surprised if it coud have some use therapeuticaly,but self-medicating with uncertified organisms is probably not a good idea (if only for dosage issues)

[Serious Callers Only]

LSD is specifically cited along with weed as one of the street drugs that is not additive. Is this true?

[ljkeane]

I suspect the study was blocked due to flawed methodology (or simply other issues, like getting the things in a proper way) rather than anything else.

The title of the thread is a bit misleading. The study itself wasn't actually blocked, it just costs more to use controlled substances as you need a license so they haven't got enough money to do it.

[DeadSpace]

LSD is specifically cited along with weed as one of the street drugs that is not additive. Is this true?

Yes. It is true.

[DeadSpace]

I think it's worth mentioning that street versions of whatever drug shouldn't be recommended for the self-medicated treatment of anything in the same way that a doctor's prescription for amphetamines to treat ADHD cannot be analogized to running out and scoring some crystal meth.

Exactly. These substances can be incredibly unpredictable. The person administering, or guiding, the session has to really know what they're doing. Which isn't to say that beneficial and healing experiences cannot happen in uncontrolled circumstances, but it could easily go the other way for the person under the influence.

The "spiritual" nature of some of the experiences is only a piece of the puzzle. There are indicators of incredible potential with these substances like enhanced learning ability, actual effective psychotherapy, and a deeper understanding of the nature of consciousness and the capabilities of the mind. The spiritual experiences play a part in all this, but there's so much more going on in terms of brain chemistry.

Usually, the nature of the spiritual experience centers around the interconnectedness of all things, which I think is actually valid. The hallucination that manifests to represent that interconnectedness is usually fairly fantastical and subjective, making it seem like a load of rubbish. This makes sense, as you're really dealing directly with the subconscious made conscious, which isn't bound by the same rules as rational mind.

[Sci-2]

The title of the thread is a bit misleading. The study itself wasn't actually blocked, it just costs more to use controlled substances as you need a license so they haven't got enough money to do it.

Good point, will change.

[History of Westeros]

Those claiming that "they think it's rubbish" but have zero experience should pipe down and listen to the people who have actually tried it. There are a lot of people speaking from extreme ignorance here.

Not saying trying mushrooms makes you an expert, but it puts you a step or three above anyone who hasn't.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Those claiming that "they think it's rubbish" but have zero experience should pipe down and listen to the people who have actually tried it. There are a lot of people speaking from extreme ignorance here.

Not saying trying mushrooms makes you an expert, but it puts you a step or three above anyone who hasn't.

Right. Like the ravings of Timothy Leary had any validity. Hey man, I tried it. It was wonderful. :bs:

[History of Westeros]

Clearly my point was missed. I said something so obvious I'm surprised anyone was able to disagree, but I was wrong.

I'll try re-stating: "people who have tried things tend to know more about it than those who have not"

As for Timothy Leary, the guy got a PHD in psychology from Berkeley and then taught at *Harvard* where he conducted the Harvard Psilocybin Project. That means we should listen to him. Not so sure why we should listen to you. Perhaps you too, are an expert.

[ljkeane]

I'll try re-stating: "people who have tried things tend to know more about it than those who have not"

I don't know about you but I've tried many things and have absolutely no idea on their efficacy as treatments for depression or alcoholism.

[Robin Of House Hill]

People who have tried things generally have more knowledge than those who don't. The problem isn't with what they know (or think they know), It is with what they say.

[History of Westeros]

I don't know about you but I've tried many things and have absolutely no idea on their efficacy as treatments for depression or alcoholism.

That's why I said they "tend to know" more, not that they automatically do. By the same token, people who have little experience with depression aren't likely to be good sources of information on preventing it. The obvious counterexample is people who are highly educated.

Leary is a great example, perhaps the best, of someone who was both an expert AND someone who experienced the effects firsthand.

[Sci-2]

I'd say what ultimately matters is data. However, anecdotes are also valuable in pointing us toward what we should be studying.

Note that I've never taken LSD or shrooms. A good friend of mine is actually a PhD candidate involved in the cancer anxiety psilocybin study.

He actually gave me stuff to read that convinced me that more research is needed in this area.

[ljkeane]

That's why I said they "tend to know" more, not that they automatically do. By the same token, people who have little experience with depression aren't likely to be good sources of information on preventing it. The obvious counterexample is people who are highly educated.

Leary is a great example, perhaps the best, of someone who was both an expert AND someone who experienced the effects firsthand.

And of course the people who do things recreationally probably enjoy doing them and have a bias towards thinking they have positive effects, regardless of whether that's true or not. The best example is people who have evidence to back up their positions, experience of the effects first hand or not.

[History of Westeros]

My objection wasn't so much to the point you're making now. It was that your post suggested that there were legions of people disagreeing with you in this thread.

You're probably right. Looking at it again, most everyone is in agreement here.

[History of Westeros]

And of course the people who do things recreationally probably enjoy doing them and have a bias towards thinking they have positive effects, regardless of whether that's true or not. The best example is people who have evidence to back up their positions, experience of the effects first hand or not.

I totally agree, that's why I keep bringing up Leary. He is (well, was) probably the person that is the actual #1 most educated on this subject in the history of mankind.

He worked with violent inmates while he was in prison. The rates of recidivism amongst those he had worked with set some sort of record.

An amazing man, sadly demonized. I say this as a person who doesn't particularly enjoy psychedelics.

[Sci-2]

I totally agree, that's why I keep bringing up Leary. He is (well, was) probably the person that is the actual #1 most educated on this subject in the history of mankind.

I'll have to go back and check but IIRC Pinchbeck - admittedly himself a controversial figure - goes into some things Leary did that actually set back the kind of research mentioned in the OP.

[History of Westeros]

I'll have to go back and check but IIRC Pinchbeck - admittedly himself a controversial figure - goes into some things Leary did that actually set back the kind of research mentioned in the OP.

I'll have to check that out myself. I wouldn't be surprised though. It's probably not uncommon for things to go a bit wrong when exploring a very unexplored topic.. and the gov't opposes it, etc.