The daring doctors experimenting with psychedelic medicines


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/03/16/the-daring-doctors-experimenti.html


#2

What’s the proper dosage?


#3

Along with all the other evils we can lay at the feet of the authoritarian wet-dream that we know as “The War On Drugs” we can add the stifling of legitimate medical research.

Fuck Nixon, just really, fuck that guy.

[quote]“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

  • John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum[41][42][43] for Harper’s Magazine[44] in 1994, about President Richard Nixon’s war on drugs, declared in 1971.[45][46][/quote]

#4

This is the kind of thing you might read when you live in a country that actively works to hinder scientific, personal, and national growth. That one must break the law to administer something used for thousands of years to treat the sick is disgusting. This nation needs an enema.


#5

Take three for starters, then call yourself in the morning.


#6


#7

Eye of Newt Tea.


#8

That’s pretty optimistic. The large scale studies to prove safety and efficacy are not going to get done, because drug companies will not make enough $$ to justify it. The smaller studies that are going on do not sway opinion…

It is a pity, I know if I ever relapse, I will seek out a practitioner to see if psychedelics can help.


#9

It’s always refreshing to hear about wise and kind hearted people who obey their conscience over fetishising the rules of strangers.

Credit to the renegade doctors for their independent data, their fight against the war on sharing, their treatments, and training others on harm reduction.

In a time when cops want to end prohibition and scientists advocate a harm reduction approach, the ruling apparatus still ignores the "tension between science and policy”.

Professor Nutt puts it bluntly - “I’m sick to death of hearing politicians complain about health when what they’re really complaining about is morality”.

He goes on to describe a circular conversation with a UK politician…

Home Secretary:You can’t compare the harms of a legal activity with an illegal one.
Professor Nutt: Why not?
Because one’s illegal.
Why is it illegal?
Because it’s harmful.
Don’t we need to compare harms to find out if it should be illegal?
You can’t compare the harms of a legal activity with an illegal one…


#10

“What’s the frequency, Kenneth? Is your Benzedrine? Uh-huh


#11

Like fuck, I can’t.

Geez, obtuse much? When are all these turds going to just fuck off and die.


#12

I read things like this and think, “How do people not realize Goodness and Law are independent axes?”

Then I remember where I learned that concept, and that others had a very different reaction to the source material.


#13

The more research is done on the placebo mechanism the more likely that eventually some scientist is going to mention to the research team that they know a colleague who has been showing very similar results at ameliorating psychologically-entrained stress using ‘a new drug’.

Hopefully enough scientists who would never have considered researching morally hazardous drugs will be brought to the mountain by other, more circuitous routes.

Having the psychedelics conversation with anyone invested in ‘normal’ society, scientist or not, is usually impossible due to their conditioning. And why would any rational person risk their career when everybody, especially their contemporaries, knows drugs are bad, regardless of what they personally believe.

I think this is very much like other socially dampened intellectually activities. Once the leaders have cleared the way and slowly accrete support from the scientific community, it’s really only a waiting game for that support to reach the critical mass of slightly more than half of the group before you will not be able to find anyone who ever didn’t support the research.


#14

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.