Mind Altering Drugs Thread - Therapy, Legality

[KARMAgrinder]

This is just a way for governments to control people. When substances like these are taken for spiritual purposes, it truly changes you, for the better. Obviously, like any other drug (except for cannabis :cool4:), if you abuse it you may destroy yourself.

edit: double post, and for some reason I can't find how to delete a post.

[Sci-2]

I thought cannabis can be overused? Strangely enough, Graham in his TED talk thought his use of marijuana was worthy of damnation. Thankfully, I guess, him taking a hallucinogen allowed him to contact some spiritual goddess who set him on his version of the straight and narrow. ;-)

[KARMAgrinder]

Well, anything can be overused, look at fast food. But you can't overdose on the stuff is pretty much what I was getting at. There are many people who kick addictions after tampering with psychedelics. However, there are those that use it recreationally and get carried away with it.

[Sci-2]

Oh, I actually applaud the use of psychedelics as a possible therapy for addiction though I wish it was more controlled which sadly means more research.

So right now you have underground treatment movements, which might help but might also lead to unnecessary complications with no physicians in attendance.

I did think Graham's talk was a wasted opportunity to champion the therapeutic use of psychedelics.

[Sci-2]

Doesn't cannabis affect developing brains if you use it too much?

[KARMAgrinder]

Doesn't cannabis affect developing brains if you use it too much?

Yes. Everything should be done in moderation.

[Sci-2]

Obviously there's some spiritual stuff here that is unverifiable, but I've heard so many experiences that the therapeutic possibilities should at least be checked out.

I mean, wouldn't it be nice for some people to have a life review trip as a kind of mental enema/cleansing so long as it was monitored by actual doctors?

[Sci-2]

Why Doctors Can't Give You LSD (But Maybe They Should)

Part of the problem with studying psychedelics--and other illicit drugs, such as marijuana--for medical use, is simply that they're not high-tech, and no pharmaceutical company needs or wants to get involved. There's no money in it for them. Though drugs like LSD and psilocybin are relatively easy to make in the lab, as MAPS founder Rick Doblin pointed out in a 2012 interview, "psychedelics are off-patent, can’t be monopolized, and compete with other psychiatric medications that people take daily."

"My colleagues say to me, in these days of nanotechology and targeted therapy, what are you doing?" says Donald Abrams, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco who has done research on medical marijuana. "We live in the 21st century. Studying plants as medicine is not where most investigators are putting their money."

And without the outside funding to continue researching, a scientist's career goes nowhere, so even fewer scientists want to get involved.

Another io9 article from 2010

Two new scientific studies reveal hallucinogens are good for your mental health LSD and ketamine, two powerful hallucinogens, are also potential cures for depression, OCD, and anxiety.

[Sci-2]

Outlawing of Psychoactive Drugs 'Scientific Censorship' Says Former Drug Advisor

Nutt has caused some controversy in the past for expressing views contrary to government drug policy while acting as a government advisor, prompting his 2009 dismissal from his position on Britain's Advisory Council of the Misuse of Drugs.

In their paper, Nutt, Leslie King -- another former drug advisor -- and University of North Carolina's David Nichols called for the use of psychoactive drugs in research to be exempted from severe restrictions.

The paper, which was published to coincide with a conference on scientific research on psychedelics, points to evidence of unexplored medicinal benefits in cannabis, MDMA and psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin, the compound found in magic mushrooms.

"If we adopted a more rational approach to drug regulation, it would empower researchers to make advances in the study of consciousness and brain mechanisms of psychosis, and could lead to major treatment innovations in areas such as depression and PTSD," Nutt said.

An abstract of the paper, "Effects of Schedule I drug laws on neuroscience research and treatment innovation" can be found here.

And an [two] old article on why you should be wary of self medicating with this stuff:

California MMA fighter Jarrod Wyatt, accused of ripping out friend’s heart and tongue, pleads guilty to murder

Witnesses say the two had ingested hallucinogenic mushrooms before the attack and believed they were involved in a struggle between God and the devil.

Police: Teen Shoots Self In Attempt To Wake Up From Shroom-Induced Nightmare « CBS Tampa

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I went through a phase of trying a lot of psychedelics in college, and did some once a few years after graduating. I can see how they can be bery beneficial but also how they can be dangerous based only Ion personal experience.

I definitely think there should be more research under controled conditions.

[Guest]

It seems like a tragedy that there isn't some loophole. I agree that these substances can be dangerous, but I also think there's undeniable therapeutic potential. Research is required. I wish that there were a loophole that allowed legal research, but maybe that's unrealistic.

[Larry of the Lawn]

There are definitely cases of people harming themselves on psychedelics; and I feel like part of the reason is lack of information. Every time I've tried a new drug for the first time, I spend a day or two reading any research that's been done as well as first person accounts of an individual's experience with the drug. Anytime things got weird it was easy to remind myself it was just the drug and reflect on what I'd read, as a result I've never had a 'bad trip' or anything like that.

That being said, in college an acquaintance drowned in front of the Jefferson Memorial while on shrooms. He couldn't swim and just dove into the water. I also know that it was the first time he'd taken psychedelics and that he took them on a whim. I'm not saying that more research would have prevented this, but I have a hard time simply blaming the drugs for him being dead today. I feel like if there was less mystery and myth surrounding these substances you wouldn't have people having such extreme and harmful responses to them.

At the same time, I can see how someone who is depressed or mentally imbalanced could seek out psychedelics in an attempt to balance things out or escape, so suicides on psychedelics might just be a thing in that they attract unbalanced people to begin with. I don't have any real evidence to offer to support this, but I strongly feel that if there was more research on these substances that even people using them illegally would have a better idea of what to expect and and a better understanding of what's going on in their mind/body when they take them, and we'd have less situations like this where someone kills themself (on purpose or by accident) while tripping.

[Lummel]

It seems like a tragedy that there isn't some loophole. I agree that these substances can be dangerous, but I also think there's undeniable therapeutic potential. Research is required. I wish that there were a loophole that allowed legal research, but maybe that's unrealistic.

There is in the UK - where Dr Nutt is from. You can do research, but it has to be under license from the Home Office - which seeing as you are talking about illegal substances doesn't on the face of it seem wildly unreasonable. That he can't provide a compelling enough case to persuade the Home Office to license the research he is interested in doing is probably several other stories. iirc he is the guy who said that horse riding is more dangerous than some kinds of drugs which politically you just can't say :dunno:

[Sci-2]

I feel like if there was less mystery and myth surrounding these substances you wouldn't have people having such extreme and harmful responses to them.

I think that in controlled settings the potential is unknown but possibly enormous, just given what little work we have now on the subject.

The experiences some addicts have had with ibogaine is pretty incredible.

As to bad reactions, not to get all New Agey but I wonder about the ritualistic disciplines that used to surround these drugs. Fasting, walking backwards, all sorts of things to mentally prepare oneself to enter what was considered the spirit realms.

The more we keep society from having the help it needs, the more I think people will turn to these drugs on their own with mixed, possibly disastrous results.

I've never actually tried any hallucinogen, or even pot, but I'm a big advocate for this kind of research after reading a little about the potential gains.

It seems like a tragedy that there isn't some loophole. I agree that these substances can be dangerous, but I also think there's undeniable therapeutic potential. Research is required. I wish that there were a loophole that allowed legal research, but maybe that's unrealistic.

I'm hoping the experiments giving shrooms to terminal cancer patients yields strong enough results to open the doorway to more studies like it being conducted in the U.S.

[Sci-2]

Mind-altering drug could offer life free of heroin

Several clinical trials have shown that low doses of ibogaine taken over the course of a few weeks can greatly reduce cravings for heroin and other drugs. There was extensive research on it in the 1990s, with good evidence of safety in animals and a handful of studies in humans. The US National Institute on Drug Abuse invested over $1 million, but then abandoned the project in 1995. A study had shown that at high doses, ibogaine caused some brain cell degeneration in rats. Lower doses similar to those used in human addiction trials showed no such effect, however....

But anecdotal accounts suggest that a single treatment is just as effective as multiple low doses. The dose is much higher, although still nowhere near the levels found to cause harm in rats. A single treatment is less expensive than standard addiction therapies, and the intensity of the experience is not a recreational high that users seem to want to repeat....

"There have been claims by the government that there's a high potential for abuse and no medical use, and claims from ibogaine advocates that one dose is a miracle cure. We're trying to gather some scientific evidence to better evaluate it," says Rick Doblin, executive director of MAPS. A similar study is also being carried out in New Zealand.

[Sci-2]

From another forum, to balance things a bit:

Common drug fallacies:

A drug is what it is called or what you have been told it is: Unless you have a testing kit, you don't know. Anyone who has ever bought ecstacy knows this one. We can smell, touch, taste and see the substance, but we can't automatically identify what it is composed of.

Prohibition fallacy: It is commonly assumed that because drugs are prohibited, they must therefore actually be safe/good/a radical posture of defiant individualist heroics. Just because their harms are routinely exaggerated or theatricised does not therefore mean they are safe.

Creativity fallacy: Drugs do not enhance creative ability, only alter neuro physiology. This may or may not enhance ability in a favourable way.

Feeling fallacy: what little effects of drug use we are able to consciously notice are not trustworthy markers of the total affects the drug is having. Cokeheads don't consciously intend to become hyper sexual gibbering creeps but it happens. The positive effects of a drug are usually temporary and override our rationality with cravings that make us neglect to consider long term consequences. If brain damage is the loss of neurological capabilities, then it stands to reason it would feel fun as hell. Being stupider is probably a welcome relief to everyone.

Control fallacy: we are not able to consciously control the effects drugs have on us. We can only notice their affects after the fact, and usually we have very poor insight even then.

Dopamine bias: I am too scientifically ignorant to speak on this, but would I be correct in saying most drugs release a short burst of pleasure chemicals which cause us to crave them in spite of other more detrimental affects?

Erowid bias: the tendency to attribute mystical or religious insight to a conscious state brought about by narcotics while remaining in total ignorance of the physical state of ones brain. It is not controversial to say that certain neurological states are responsible for our feelings of religious insight. A sounder method would be to scientifically deduce these rather than shovelling dubious plants into our stomachs and hoping for the best.

[DanteGabriel]

Wow, trippy to see Ibogaine mentioned in a current drug study. Over forty years ago Hunter S. Thompson partially derailed a Democratic Senator's presidential campaign by making up a rumor about him taking Ibogaine.

[Cabbageleafbastard]

Mind-altering drug could offer life free of heroin

This would be amazing if it works. Thankfully heroin is not present where I live, but I have a buddy who went to the methadone clinic for opiate dependence. He was smart enough to get off the drug before too long, and was able to kick opiates as well. Methadone is no joke, there was actually someone in my community who overdosed on it not to long ago. From my understanding once your addicted to methadone your screwed. The drug is extremely powerful and damn near impossible to withdrawal from without medical help. Hopefully this will give people addicted to heroin and opiates a better alternative than a drug that you will take the rest of your life.

[Weeping Sore]

It seems plausible to me that Psilocybin in a controlled environment would be a spectacular aid to intensive therapy (implying a session of about a 4-5 hours session as it were). The combination of dissociative effects (to regard oneself "outside oneself"), along with the ability to stay emotionally present, and be guided into re-visiting traumatic episodes with the hope of re-casting them to aid present emotional health, seems particularly promising.

As far as spiritual effects of psychedelic drugs- drugs are never going to make you a spiritual person. If your mind-set already contains a spiritual outlook, you may cast drug experiences in a spiritual light. If you are a strict materialist, you will explain away any transcendant feelings as "I swallowed this weird chemical, and it did fucked up things to my brain."

On the therapeutic value of spirituality, A.A. certainly banks on it, and Carl Jung lamented the (in his time) growing denigration of the spiritual as off-limits for psychiatry. A materialist needs different coping methods than someone who entertains spiritual possibilities, but I think to a certain extent psychiatry has become self-selecting for those people who are (at least not consciously) looking for spiritual answers to their problems.

On using psilocybin recreationally, I recommend the experience for one and all. Make sure you have the company of a good friend or loved one that you have no trouble sharing your deepest thoughts and feelings with.

[The Don Dadda]

There is in the UK - where Dr Nutt is from. You can do research, but it has to be under license from the Home Office - which seeing as you are talking about illegal substances doesn't on the face of it seem wildly unreasonable. That he can't provide a compelling enough case to persuade the Home Office to license the research he is interested in doing is probably several other stories. iirc he is the guy who said that horse riding is more dangerous than some kinds of drugs which politically you just can't say :dunno:

Well why can't you say that? David Nutt looked at the number of injuries and hospital admissions that were a result of somebody riding a horse, and then compared that with the number of injuries and hospital admissions that were a result of somebody taking ecstasy. The numbers showed that riding a horse was more likely to lead to injury or health problems than taking ecstasy - so why can't he say that? As part of the Advisory Council that he was fired from it was his job to provide information to the government relating to issues with drugs and he unquestionably fulfilled his brief. If our political system makes it inadvisable to tell the truth, then it is that system that needs to change, not David Nutt.

To anyone who is interested this is a lecture that David Nutt gave at the LSE about British drug policy and the episode which led to his dismissal from the Advisory Council http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=1679