More states legalize Pot 8) when for Oz?

[Skids]

I tried LSD a couple of times back in the 80's. Not my scene at all!

Hallucinations, panic attacks and the length of time you're under its influence... I found it quite terrifying to be honest.

[K]

^^^
Aren't hallucinations the whole point? And isn't the dose what determines length of time? (Maybe you took too much.) Panic attacks, admittedly, are no good. (I guess advocates would say you needed a guide or two for that.)

[K]

[K]

[Mugwump]

^ all very good, but it ignores the critical point : mind altering drugs alter the mind. They disorder the human brain, which has evolved to function as it does in order to make society (our default mode as intellectually higher social apes) work. Our intellectual and moral senses are too precious to be fooled about with on any scale (we already do this with alcohol, to our immense and evident cost, but at least its mental effects in mild doses are negligible).

As a limited experiment to better understand the effect on brain chemistry of hallucinogenic drugs, this type of study may be defended. But of course it is clearly more than this : as with most such "experiments", this appears to be a subterfuge to advance the insane notion that human moral senses and powers are "enhanced" by drugs. That idea, widely popularized by gullible, earnest advocates and pop musicians since the 1960s, is perhaps the most powerful acid (ahem) to have ever eaten away the safety and strength of an advanced society. We see its effects everywhere today.

[K]

Certainly, potential use seems much more justifiable in a therapeutic context (than for recreational purposes), i.e. when there is a desperate need that may justify certain risks, even large ones.

[K]

[K]

^ And here is the MAPS press release:

https://www.maps.org/news/media/7158-pr ... stant-ptsd

Key quotes:

"[T]he double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 2 pilot study in 26 participants found that one month after their second day-long experimental session, 68% in the full-dose MDMA group did not qualify for a diagnosis of PTSD, compared to 29% in the low-dose MDMA (active placebo) control group. The course of double-blind treatment included 13.5 hours of non-drug psychotherapy and 16 hours (two day-long experimental sessions) of either full-dose or low-dose MDMA-assisted psychotherapy. On average, the positive results were sustained one year later."
...


"Phase 3 clinical trials of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD will begin in the summer of 2018, and will enroll 200-300 participants across 16 sites in the U.S., Canada, and Israel. If the Phase 3 trials demonstrate significant efficacy and an acceptable safety profile, FDA approval is expected by 2021."

[K]

Ecstasy as a Remedy for PTSD? You Probably Have Some Questions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/us/e ... -mdma.html

[stui magpie]

K, with due respect, so what?

so some illicit drugs can have beneficial effects to specific cases when administered under controlled supervision. That doesn't mean these drugs should be generally available to all or can't do serious have when used in uncontrolled situations

[Mugwump]

[K]

K, with due respect, so what?

so some illicit drugs can have beneficial effects to specific cases when administered under controlled supervision. That doesn't mean these drugs should be generally available to all or can't do serious have when used in uncontrolled situations

Stui, that is a weird comment. I post things that I think are interesting and relevant (having basically broadened the discussion from pot to all drugs). I already said on this page that I think the risk-reward balance is a lot different for medical purposes, but I actually never even said I would vote for that in a hypothetical referendum. I don't expect everyone to read every single post in a thread, but anyone who did read past posts may have formed the impression that I am drug-phobic, while you seem to have jumped wildly to the opposite conclusion.

[HAL]

Can you rephrase the question please?

[stui magpie]

K, with due respect, so what?

so some illicit drugs can have beneficial effects to specific cases when administered under controlled supervision. That doesn't mean these drugs should be generally available to all or can't do serious have when used in uncontrolled situations

Stui, that is a weird comment. I post things that I think are interesting and relevant (having basically broadened the discussion from pot to all drugs). I already said on this page that I think the risk-reward balance is a lot different for medical purposes, but I actually never even said I would vote for that in a hypothetical referendum. I don't expect everyone to read every single post in a thread, but anyone who did read past posts may have formed the impression that I am drug-phobic, while you seem to have jumped wildly to the opposite conclusion.

I haven't actually jumped to any conclusion other than your sudden spate of articles were all about the potential medicinal benefits of some illicit drugs. Considering the topic of the thread is about legalising drugs or not, I simply commented. Did you have another point that I missed in posting those or they were just random things vaguely related to the topic and you thought you'd share them?

[K]

Did you have another point that I missed in posting those or they were just random things vaguely related to the topic and you thought you'd share them?

My recent posts were on psychedelics, which are illegal. In finer resolution, there are two topics: Michael Pollan's book (released May 15) and the results of a Phase 2 MDMA study in Lancet (published May 1).

On the book:
The NY Times had an excerpt on May 15, which I noted on May 17, with links to a review & an earlier article, which I noted shortly after.
On the study:
Time had an article on May 30, which I noted on June 2, with other articles on the same.

There's a pattern there. Media put out articles, I see them shortly after, and I comment (or not). It's not particularly surprising to me that those two events had wide media coverage. I don't have control over what the study results were, and actually the study authors would claim the same for themselves. Most people would describe those articles as "news", but, since I neither own those media nor write for them, I am perfectly happy for you to call them "random things" if that's what you prefer.

I can ponder whether and under what circumstances these drugs should be legal if you wish. Perhaps that will be influenced by the results of the yet-to-come Stage 3 trial.