The Law Isn't Ready for Psychedelic Medicine

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/psychedelic-medicine-is-coming-the-law-isnt-ready/

by Elof • 7 years ago

78 90 7 years ago

blogs.scientificamerican.com

not_a_cop75• 7 years ago

Honestly, what IS the law ready for?

Lawyers making money? Check. Benefiting the public at large? Big Nope.

loxs2• 7 years ago

Yeah, for millions of years, we always waited for the law to be ready, before we made some breakthrough.

XaoDaoCaoCao• 7 years ago

It's a cultural crime that psychedelics have been criminalized for half a century or so.

The expansion of certain mental faculties (3-D Visualization, free thought association, meta-thought) could have been harvested for societal benefit...

Oh well, wishes to the dust and all that.

rainyMammoth• 7 years ago

It's the start of a journey. There are huge benefits to psychedelics that are still undiscovered. It will take at least 50 more years but we will eventually get there

drawkbox2• 7 years ago

1970-2030+ or so will be seen as a drug dark age. A time where criminalization made everything more dangerous, and harm reduction worse. Part of a 60+ year gap in innovation using all substances for many health related cures and issues as well as recreational fun and exploration.

We learned nothing from alcohol (a drug) prohibition.

All prohibition and criminalization does is make everything more harmful, from use, to production, to creating cartels/mafias that become as powerful as nation states.

chepaslaaa• 7 years ago

creating cartels/mafias that become as powerful as nation states.

The state is balls deep in those cartels. Go read about Freeway Rick Ross and Afghanistan poppy fields for prime examples. It's all part of the military industrial complex, Peter Dale Scott has great books on the matter.

pessimizer2• 7 years ago

Drugs have been largely a tool by the government to justify aggressive searches of poor people. I don't think the justice system we have can work only with only the search justifications of terrorism, child pornography, and intellectual property theft. Maybe I'll be surprised, though.

Maybe hate speech/bullying will be the new frontier. We have to know what everybody is reading and writing to make sure they aren't hating: "my dog alerted to the smell of a flash drive."

lostmsu5• 7 years ago

Why do you think there is an expansion of any sort? For any effect a simple explanation is that some function gets reduced, and result simply looks wild.

selestify• 7 years ago

some function gets reduced

What does this mean?

macrolime• 7 years ago

If you try to imagine an orange on the table, you normally won't see that orange as if it really was on the table in front of you. It's a lower fidelity imagination.

There are of course good reasons for this, you wouldn't survive long in the wild if things you thought about suddenly seemed to appear in front of you.

On psychedelics, this doesn't necessarily happen either, but you can learn to visualize things in 3D as if they were real objects in front of you. Using this for anything useful takes some skill and practice, but it can be done. Some people can do this without psychedelics, but they tend to have mental health issues.

techntoke3• 7 years ago

Psychedelics are legal if you're wealthy.

WalterSear5• 7 years ago

There are plenty that are cheap to obtain or grow.

techntoke3• 7 years ago

But the cops only care about them if you're poor.

antisemiotic• 7 years ago

Sure, but about anything is legal if you're wealthy. (sometimes a travel to a poorer country might be needed). Or more precisely: the law bothers you only if you're poor or piss off someone richer than you.

lovvtide2• 7 years ago

The implication that this has anything to do with the law is amusing.

xrd• 7 years ago

Many states (Oregon and Colorado) are starting to decriminalize psilocybin. The interesting thing is always how the federal government views this and what actions it takes. I'm optimistic.

Elof• 7 years ago

Just happed in June in the Bay Area, CA. Alameda County, which includes Berkeley and Oakland. The law is for naturally derived psychedelics so it includes things like DMT and Ibogaine as well

dfischer3• 7 years ago

We should eliminate a majority of law. Too much law is like an over engineered program with edge cases for everything that prevents anything from changing in the future. Law cements stagnancy in our society. And at the worst, it creates moats for the powers that can use law to protect their interests over others.

yoube• 7 years ago

Why is tech infested with know-it-all libertarians? Honestly, do you think we'd all be better off in a lawless anarchy?

dymk2• 7 years ago

Same reason "Let's just throw it away and rewrite it the right way this time!" is such a common failure mode of engineering projects.

While it nearly assures the death of the project, it's so enticing due to its simplicity.

jMyles• 7 years ago

I can't speak for the rest of "tech", but this know-it-all libertarian prefers lawful anarchy to the lawless variety. :-)

(Not sure I'm really a libertarian either, but almost certainly a know-it-all)

_tb• 7 years ago

yes.

WalterSear5• 7 years ago

Cognitive artifacts exacerbate the fundamental attribution error in proportion to their social effect.

quickthrower2• 7 years ago

I think the parent meant less laws, not lawless. Anarchy? No.

loxs2• 7 years ago

Strange, I thought it's infested with know-it-all socialists.

dymk2• 7 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

Mathnerd314• 7 years ago

A lot of laws were written before the internet and don't really apply now that culture has changed so much. And the rest are so vague that even lawyers argue over what they mean. Newer laws are written by corporate lawyers and passed by corrupt politicians to further protect their monopolies, with no regard as to their long-term effects.

Trump has a 5:1 ratio on regulations cut vs passed: https://cei.org/blog/trump-maintains-one-five-out-pace-rules...

tl;dr no point in paying attention to existing laws.

microcolonel2• 7 years ago

I'm more a fan of the inverse: anything that could be reformed in the future should not be proposed without an accompanying explanation of the full context of the decision to enact the policy.

If you believe reforms should not be made, publish those arguments to the best of your abilities.

Never assume that your reasoning will be obvious to even the next person in your position, let alone the next generation.

ralusek• 7 years ago

One of my favorite policy proposals I've ever seen is Andrew Yang's proposal to sunset old laws, and put expiration dates on legislature. Laws should have to continuously defend their existence.

Particularly in regards to laws that provide benefits to a group of people, it's basically political suicide for somebody to run on the platform of removing that benefit.

My girlfriend used to work in affordable housing, and she would tell me about how the reference book of codes and laws they had to keep in line with had increased by orders of magnitude in size as compared to those from a few decades prior. A politician adds access to affordable housing for those making less than 45k, except for those who were part of the 1985 initiative benefiting LGBTQ out of state college graduates, in which case their children can continue to benefit from access to the affordable housing for 7 years after the death of their parents at a more forgiving 75k minimum salary, after which a 15 year period lowers it to 60k, given that they continue to work within 50 miles of the initial residence of their parent beneficiaries. I'm obviously making this specific example up, but it's not too far off from reality.

pessimizer2• 7 years ago

This would just result in industries, sharks and scam artists waiting until laws expired and quietly doing the thing the law was designed to prevent like crazy until it was noticed and legislative machinery could slowly get around to closing the loophole again.

Legislation and regulation are horribly slow to get passed anyway, a rule like that would add an order of magnitude more overhead. Now the question wouldn't be "how may laws apply to the thing I want to do" but "how many laws will pop out of existence over the duration of the thing I want to do, which ones benefit me and which hurt me, how much will I have to spend on lawyers and lobbyists to maintain a vaguely stable environment, and who will be spending to oppose this?"

kd5bjo• 7 years ago

My personal twist on this one is to make showing a habitual failure to enforce a law be an affirmative defense for all crimes. That way, the law is by definition what is enforced, and singling someone out for infractions that are generally overlooked becomes a much more risky tool for the police to use.

lunias2• 7 years ago

This. We should be constantly striving for the minimal set of laws which produce the desired effects. After all, the more lines you write the more space there is to play in between them.

pmoriarty• 7 years ago

If psychedelic use becomes more widespread it could lead to a radical change in society the like of which we haven't seen since the 1960's. This is the one slight sliver of hope I'm holding out for the future.

WalterSear5• 7 years ago

IME and opinion, their potential to elicit empathy and mental growth is overrated, and not imediately related to their antidepressant and trauma integrative effects.

rosser4• 7 years ago

Their effects are largely a result of what you're trying to get out of them, and how earnestly you pursue those ends. People who want those things, and mean it, tend more often to find them, in my own experience.

throwaway88792• 7 years ago

Strictly anecdotal obviously, but having spent a majority of my 20s in and about the Ayahuasca "peace and love let's dance with flowers in our hair" crowd, I can tell you that a lot of the empathy and mental growth is very superficial. At least seemed that way to me.

simplemts2• 7 years ago

MDMA boosts empathy: https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/mdma http://theconversation.com/ecstasy-users-are-more-empathetic...

LSD on Empathy (Increasing altruism): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5813062/

LSD enhances emotional empathy: https://www.nature.com/articles/npp201682

Lifetime usage of psychedelics correlates to increase in nature relatedness: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28631526

Anecdotally, 3 of my friends and myself (sample=4) all have self-reported significant improvements in empathy, as well as verified confirmation by our romantic partners. This has also led to objective changes such as volunteering, random acts of kindness, increased gratitude and altruism, and more.

There are also studies on terminally ill showing dramatic decreases in anxiety and depression: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5367557/

I don't know if you've ever suffered from either of these, but I can assure you, severely depressed or anxious people are not overly empathetic as they are ruminating and caught in their own minds more than being interested in others (overactive default mode network).

In short... there are numerous scientific studies confirming the benefits of these drugs. I fail to see any "overrated" potential after studying these molecules myself for years for experientially and academically.

lostmsu5• 7 years ago

What does psychedelic use have to do with a change in society? I lived in Seattle during the time marijuana was legalized, and did not see anything of the sort.

CameronNemo2• 7 years ago

Cannabis is not psychedelic, at least to the same degree that classical psychedelics are (Psilocybin, Mescaline, DMT).

13of40• 7 years ago

Did the rate of marijuana use meaningfully change, though? It's been abundantly available on the west coast for decades. The only thing that changed is who you buy it from, and to a certain degree who you have to hide it from.

empath75• 7 years ago

Pot is very very different from lsd. And also I doubt legalization had a meaningful impact in usage rates.

For that matter, I suspect even if lsd were legal, I don’t think a lot of people would do it.

Back in the 90s when lsd was super cheap and everywhere on the east coast, most people didn’t do it. Even when I was going to raves a lot and hanging around with people who did a lot of drugs and sold drugs, most people did not do lsd very often. It’s an intense experience and a lot of people don’t find the idea appealing and don’t enjoy it when they try it.

lovvtide2• 7 years ago

This time we have the Internet.

bjourne2• 7 years ago

I frequent other message boards in which people share their stories about using drugs. One story I read a while ago was from a "newbie" (novice?) sharing his experience taking LSD. First he got some nice hallucinations but then he took a knife from his kitchen and started carving up his arm. Which, of course, meant he lost lots of blood and had to go to the hospital.

Anyways, the point, for me, wasn't the story itself but how the more experienced drug users reacted. They didn't write "You're lying! LSD is a mellow drug and won't cause you to harm yourself." Nope, nothing of the sort, instead their opinion was that the novice made a "classic rookie mistake" by leaving dangerous items around. One user wrote that before he tripped he always hid all dangerous items as a precaution. What I also read on that message board was that you shouldn't experiment with psychedelia unless you have a stable psyche.

Would a pill with the label "Not to be taken by people with an unstable psyche" or "Possible side effects: Knife carving of muscle tissue by user" pass any regulatory body? I think if such substance came from big pharma most people would be very skeptical.

JamesBarney• 7 years ago

If this did become used in a medical setting it would only be allowed to be prescribed by a small number of licensed physicians, and only in a specific type of healthcare session.

These types of risks are far less if you imagine taking them in a hospital room with a babysitter, similar to how ecstacy is currently prescribed.

mschuster912• 7 years ago

People pull incredibly dumb stuff on alcohol all the time. No one cares, no warning labels "don't do alcohol when you're prone to being an aggressive douchebag" on alcohol, nothing.

Basic drug education in schools would prevent many of these issues. Stuff like "what are the effects/risks of various popular drugs", "always have someone sober as a tripsitter", "call an ambulance when someone overdoses, there are Good Samaritan laws"... but no, schools worldwide rather teach/preach abstinence and kids end up fucked, because from where should they know if their parents are not 60s hippie kids?

rosser4• 7 years ago

Seriously. This is the "anti-drug" argument I just don't get how people fall for. An acquaintance-of-a-friend dropped and then stabbed his roommate 57 times. Of course these stories can readily be found, but they just pale next to the shit drunk people do, and which we just dismiss.

0x8BADF00D• 7 years ago

Would a pill with the label "Not to be taken by people with an unstable psyche" or "Possible side effects: Knife carving of muscle tissue by user" pass any regulatory body?

And yet alcohol kills and maims millions per year. The tool is not dangerous, it is the person who (mis)uses it.

scottlocklin2• 7 years ago

Millions? Citations needed. Assuming this is right in some sense, alcohol has been integrated into functioning civilizations for thousands of years and still causes this kind of damage, where insane garbage like LSD hasn't, and no civilization worth talking about has managed to integrate a psychedelic drug with it and maintain a high level of civilization. And yes, I've tried it, and I've seen what it does to people: nothing positive.

Sure makes people think they're clever though.

sergioj974• 7 years ago

Different tools have differences though. And some tools harm people more easily than others, independently of the person who uses them.

I don't understand why alcohol has such an important place in some cultures and I find disturbing the degree to which it is associated with social activity. However, I still consider LSD to be a more dangerous drug.

fragmede• 7 years ago

Prohibition is at least part of the problem. Since LSD isn't something anyone with a prescription can wander down to CVS/Walgreens and pick up a known quantity, how much LSD is in a given dose is a mystery until after empirical testing. Imagine if a can of alcohol had an unknown effect until an hour or two after drinking it, with effects ranging from a mild buzz, to being black-out drunk, to alcohol poisoning resulting in hospitalization or death. Every regulatory body would be similarly hesitant to allow it as the situation mentioned here.

TomMarius3• 7 years ago

And not just that; street LSD is also not unusually mixed with various other compounds

grumdan2• 7 years ago

I agree that prohibition does cause a lot of issues.

This makes even less sense since one difference is that there is no equivalent to "alcohol poisoning" with LSD. A dose at which LSD is physically toxic is so high (200 times a recreational dose) that it's incredibly unlikely to take by accident. As far as I know, there are no known overdose deaths due to LSD.

(However, there are analogues to LSD that are toxic: 25I-NBOMe and 25C-NBOMe).

maxander• 7 years ago

All sorts of medical drugs have contraindications- that’s why we have doctors prescribe them in the first place. E.g., you have severe sleep apnea, you shouldn’t use benzodiazepines; if you have bad anxiety you shouldn’t take address; etc etc. LSD will take a bit more diligence (it’s powerful!) but is not qualitatively different in that respect.

stevula• 7 years ago

I would imagine the hypothetical clinical dose would be lower than the common recreational dose.

golergka• 7 years ago

I don't think that I have a stable psyche, and I have experimented with psychedelics a lot of times in my life, but I can't imagine doing something like that on LSD or shrooms.

What have most likely had happened is that he was sold some other psychedelic, like NBOMe, or 2CB (which are often more easily available than LSD-25).

rolltiide• 7 years ago

So therefore we should imprison everyone that happens to have it on them, use that to bar them from employment for the rest of their lives, remove several of their constitutional rights including voting and discredit everything they say

Okay, chief

I would prefer responsible use, predictable ingredients, supply chain transparency

ryacko• 7 years ago

The US government did spend millions of dollars in psychedelic research before the 70s, I would hope they’ve developed protocols for safe usage at some point. Research from that time certainly could serve as groundwork for valid health treatments if done in an ethical and transparent manner.

drawkbox2• 7 years ago

The anecdote you describe happened under the illegal black market, where production is unconfirmed and harm reduction is not available as easy.

With decriminalization or even a legal market, that person maybe wouldn't have done it like that. With the black market, and criminality as it is, they probably didn't get the safety information they needed for harm reduction.

One thing is for sure, prohibition creates dangerous production pipelines and enriches cartels/mafias the level of nation states and that makes danger for everyone around.

The warnings on alcohol would be similar to other illegal drugs, alcohol is more toxic and dangerous than most of them. Cannabis, LSD and psilocybin (mushrooms) have the lowest toxicity of any drugs including aspirin, caffeine, nicotine and more. The information about safety and harm reduction would be clearer with a decriminalized or legal market and production would be much better with the latter, ultimately safer.

bjourne2• 7 years ago

With decriminalization or even a legal market, that person maybe wouldn't have done it like that. With the black market, and criminality as it is, they probably didn't get the safety information they needed for harm reduction.

How do you figure that? The mind-altering effects of psychedelia aren't affected by the legality of the substances.

The warnings on alcohol would be similar to other illegal drugs, alcohol is more toxic and dangerous than most of them.

That may be true but it is also irrelevant in a discussion on how dangerous psychedelia is (it's a form of what-about-ism). Plus, the analogue would be leaving kitchen knives around when drinking alcohol. I have truly never heard anyone call that a "rookie mistake".

To me it seems that users are well aware of the risks involved and when they discuss among themselves they are open about it. But when they are on message boards with "opponents" (like on HN), the tone of the discussion completely changes and risks are being downplayed.

TomMarius3• 7 years ago

Would a machine that would sometimes (in its infancy) kill you simply by itself be legal? Apparently cars got legal. Why not psychedelics?

Cthulhu_• 7 years ago

Because you're in control of a car as the driver; I'm not sure why you (and others) are drawing out analogies like this. Whataboutism.

newsgremlin• 7 years ago

Drugs have different effects on different people. This is why mental health is important. We all need to take it seriously rather than entertaining the idea as we have in recent years as something secondary to physical health. A record of mental health for each individual will allow doctors to make informed decisions when prescribing a drug or not.

That's why psychedelics must be regulated and the dosage controlled to observe the effects on the individual. Anecdotes of illegal use/misuse are not useful in determining the common effects of said drug and the general benefits/side-effects.

GordonS• 7 years ago

I'd say a better precaution is to always trip with a trip-sitter - someone sober who can help and guide you if things start to get a bit dark/scary.

lunias2• 7 years ago

I think you've highlighted the one of the primary reasons that prohibition is harmful. If these substances were treated like medicine, studied, and understood then we would all be much safer. Perhaps there is an actual scientific means of determining if someone has an "unstable psyche" before prescribing them the psychedelic (currently hard to discern because of restrictions on research of controlled substances). I'd imagine that if your doctor was thinking about this as a potential treatment for you then they'd want you to experience it there at the office, in the care of trained professionals, to gauge your reaction before sending you off into the unknown.

Also, there are people who would die if they ate a PB&J. The difference is that, with regard to peanut allergies, we have data on how to test patients and how to protect them from exposure. With psychedelics it's either D.A.R.E or some guy on the internet - and the information provided by those sources is so contradictory that you're left rolling the dice.

I'd predict that psychedelics are very safe for almost everyone without a severe pre-existing mental condition (this is my experience as a guy on the internet).

4ntonius8lock• 7 years ago

Really?

Psychotic reactions aren't uncommon.

Not to mention insanely complex, unpleasant side effects.

Many anti depressants have a suicide idealization side effect. Ambien has people sleep driving/walking (very dangerous). And alcohol... do we really need to give any explanation there?

It isn't a matter of intensity of issue (given that suicide is generally worse than cutting), and it isn't frequency (since we have many more side effects from legal drugs).

The issue is the media, and the way your mind selects news stories to create the reality you perceive.

Looking at stats and numbers is a great way to overcome this bias.

The Law Isn't Ready for Psychedelic Medicine

Related Stories