Attaching a scientific editorial published last month. It raises some good points and goes over some of the latest developments in the rational study of psychedelics.

Here is one of my favorite parts:



I think some of us may be enthusiastic participants in this type of research already

Posting here in case anyone wants to have an open discussiom on some of the points the editorial raises.

Thanks for sharing that pdf. I found it interesting!

An excerpt: Max Planck, founder of quantum theory: ‘[A] new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it’


This is how I feel about the entire topic. The social stigma that surrounds psychedelics and many other things in this world, is holding us back. I feel Timothy Leary and his counterparts set us back two decades or more because of their irresponsible antics. The way we are approaching the therapeutic use of psychedelics now is a much better path I would say. We are still going to combat these opponents tooth and nail. Eventually they will die, and with them the social stigma.

I wish it was moving much faster, but I feel we are headed in the right direction. It is going to take patience and dedicated people to move this forward. Psychiatry definitely needs some help from psychedelic therapy. These to me is an obvious statement. More and more people will begin to see it this way as well. We can't keep doing what we have been. It just is not working. With psychedelics on the table, we now have much more options to work with.

Probably won't get much support for my counter-opinion on this one from people here

In a nutshell my premise is that the idea of psychedelic therapy helping psychiatry is the blind leading the blind. Neither side really has any true definitions or reference points beyond the chemical interactions in the brain or talking about things from a purely mechanistic point of view, as eluded to in the paper.

It still takes the same angle as traditional psychiatry of attempting to deal with symptoms of a person and put a band-aid over the issue, rather than trying to actually address the root causes. Addressing alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, anxiety etc by taking a pill or plant is only masking the symptoms, and while it may indeed work in the short-term, and apparently effectively so, if it is not tackling the underlying structures that caused the behaviour in the first place then all you're doing is playing whack-a-mole and the issue will manifest itself elsewhere in that persons life.

Having said that it's an interesting field that deserves exploration, but I think those who wish to take psychedelics into the modern arena through psychiatry are actually shooting themselves in the foot with this approach. What do they really think the inevitable outcome of trying to blend their free-spirited explorations with the rigid behemoth of modern society will be? All that will happen is the system will co-opt the whole bloody thing and sell it back to the people as a product, based around a utilitarian approach to psychiatry that only cares about getting people back to work and paying taxes essentially. It will allow that and no more.

If the approval of psychedelics for controlled medical use achieves nothing else, it will have to get them rescheduled out of the strictest "no medical use" category, which may benefit us.

As for the system selling them to the masses as a product to get them back to work and paying taxes... I think this raises an important question: can they be used to indoctrinate or moralize people?
If you serve them in a medical setting and with tons of BS, and the patient has a spiritual experience, one that feels more real than this reality, can said BS overpower that experience? Or will the person wake up, no matter what they're told? I tend to believe the latter is the case. But that's me. Perhaps someone not intending to wake up, won't. Even then, exposing many people to psychedelics within an approved setting can be beneficial if it only wakes up one person, and I'm sure it will more. But then, it may backfire and get them de-approved if the establishment feels threatened.

Possibly some even more important questions are: is mankind ready to wake up? Is an awakened humanity what we want? I for one enjoy all the technology that's available to me - computers, smartphones, internet etc., and I'm afraid if everyone were awake, no one would want to sit in the offices of the likes of Google, Apple, Microsoft etc. all day to design this technology, write code etc. People would be happier with themselves and wouldn't want to achieve so much, to compete, to work as hard. So I'm benefiting from the fact that the majority of the population is asleep, while I - in my awakeness - enjoy the gifts of their slavery. I may prefer that this status quo remains, at least for the time being. And if it is to change, that the changes be slow and not sudden.

In the long run it may have the intended effect you're hoping for by planting the seed in the mind of the public, but in the short-term? I don't know, the system is pretty selfish, slow moving, and hoards what it co-opts, especially if there's great monetary potential in selling that discovery back to the populace.

It could change the legal status but actually increase penalties for 'unauthorized' use outside a medical facility. "This is now our medicine", said the system.

Would you be prepared for that outcome?



I really don't like the idea of the state acting as a middle man in this arena, even under a controlled medical setting. Fuck that. It will always come with terms and conditions, even subliminal ones. It's like state education.. it's great for acting on the underlying potential of a childs mind but it always comes with terms and conditions, namely the bias of the teacher, school, and system itself.

These experiences should be had alone so there is as little cultural broadband noise as possible.



I wouldn't worry about that happening any time soon Psychedelics don't automatically awaken people. The person has to be facing in that direction to begin with, to want to know something, and the majority of people simply have no desire to know and are quite happy just playing with themselves.

The blind leading the blind is not unknown in medical formats, it will also apply if entheogens come across it's field. It's always working with chances. After collecting dry data and attempts to narrow down causes, there's still trial and error and it's very hard to avoid that. You can't expect for a good treatment to come out of thin air, expertise comes after learning and taking risks somehow.
My 2 cents.