“So the plan is to treat an addictive drug problem with more drugs.”
This isn’t exactly new, nor is it a bad development. Methadone has been used to treat opiate addiction for a long time and is currently considered the gold standard for the treatment of opiate dependence:
“Given the burden of disease, the development of effective treatments for opioid dependence is of great significance. Methadone maintenance is currently the gold standard of treatments as it is associated with reductions in intravenous drug use, crime, HIV risk behaviors and mortality, and is well-established in community treatment programs around the world.”
The idea that many of these substance are addictive (especially in the case of psychedelics) is simply untrue:
“The curious property of psychedelics is that they’re anti-addictive,” Dr. James Fadiman, author of The Psychedelic Explorer’s Guide from Santa Cruz, Calif. told Medical Daily. Fadiman has been researching psychedelics since the 1960s, and over the decades, he’s observed that the drugs are difficult to abuse because they are incapable of producing psychoactive effects when used in succession.
“You can take 100 micrograms of LSD, [a typical dose], on Monday and have an experience. Then if you take 100 micrograms on Tuesday, you’ll maybe get one tenth of that experience. Take 100 micrograms on Wednesday, [and you’ll get] no experience. Take even 1,000 micrograms on Thursday, zero experience. It’s as if your system says, ‘this is not appropriate!’”
We should certainly resist psychiatry’s attempts to promote new “miracle cures” for the bill of ailments promoted within the DSM, but we should not adopt and continue to spread drug war propaganda in the process. For example, the idea that research into psychedelics was abandoned “for good reason” is simply not true, and any cursory reading about the history of psychedelic research and the drug war’s effects on it reveals its falsehood:
Furthermore, the most vocal proponents of psychedelic research, such as Dennis McKenna and his MultiDisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (http://www.maps.org/research) are on record as being extremely critical of big pharma:
“… Big Pharma wants drugs that people consume… You can’t use [psychedelics]… in a therapeutic session without intense psychotherapy, whether that’s actual psychotherapy or shamanism or some combination of those things. These are drugs that have to be used in context. The ‘take two and call me in the morning’ model doesn’t work for these. These have to be used in a very highly controlled set and setting. So I think where the business model comes in is you have places where people can go and get this kind of therapy… Our whole bio-medical-industrial complex is set up to encourage Band-Aid solutions. You have a problem. You go see your psychiatrist. He has seven minutes, if he’s lucky, to talk to you. Here’s a prescription. Get out of here. That’s the way it works. With psychedelics, you actually have to have a therapist who will sit down and talk with you. This is a whole novel concept. So I think where the business potential comes in is to have centers of therapy where you can go and get psychedelic therapy. And the emphasis is more on the setting and the services provided than on the actual chemicals.”
So, I’m sorry, but this piece reads like one written by someone who has not kept up with developments on psychedelic research nor of someone with in depth familiarity of the history of the drug war and its subsequent influences on the abandonment of research of these substances.
“So the plan is to treat an addictive drug problem with more drugs.”
This isn’t exactly new, nor is it a bad development. Methadone has been used to treat opiate addiction for a long time and is currently considered the gold standard for the treatment of opiate dependence:
“Given the burden of disease, the development of effective treatments for opioid dependence is of great significance. Methadone maintenance is currently the gold standard of treatments as it is associated with reductions in intravenous drug use, crime, HIV risk behaviors and mortality, and is well-established in community treatment programs around the world.”
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874458/]
The idea that many of these substance are addictive (especially in the case of psychedelics) is simply untrue:
“The curious property of psychedelics is that they’re anti-addictive,” Dr. James Fadiman, author of The Psychedelic Explorer’s Guide from Santa Cruz, Calif. told Medical Daily. Fadiman has been researching psychedelics since the 1960s, and over the decades, he’s observed that the drugs are difficult to abuse because they are incapable of producing psychoactive effects when used in succession.
“You can take 100 micrograms of LSD, [a typical dose], on Monday and have an experience. Then if you take 100 micrograms on Tuesday, you’ll maybe get one tenth of that experience. Take 100 micrograms on Wednesday, [and you’ll get] no experience. Take even 1,000 micrograms on Thursday, zero experience. It’s as if your system says, ‘this is not appropriate!’”
[http://www.medicaldaily.com/psychedelic-drugs-mental-health-disorders-bad-rap-war-drugs-385946]
We should certainly resist psychiatry’s attempts to promote new “miracle cures” for the bill of ailments promoted within the DSM, but we should not adopt and continue to spread drug war propaganda in the process. For example, the idea that research into psychedelics was abandoned “for good reason” is simply not true, and any cursory reading about the history of psychedelic research and the drug war’s effects on it reveals its falsehood:
[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment]
[http://psypressuk.com/2015/07/30/professor-david-nutt-why-banning-lsd-and-magic-mushrooms-is-the-worst-censorship-of-medicine-in-world-history/?utm_content=buffer1b1e4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/can-mushrooms-treat-depression.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&src=me&WT.nav=MostEmailed&_r=2]
Furthermore, the most vocal proponents of psychedelic research, such as Dennis McKenna and his MultiDisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (http://www.maps.org/research) are on record as being extremely critical of big pharma:
“… Big Pharma wants drugs that people consume… You can’t use [psychedelics]… in a therapeutic session without intense psychotherapy, whether that’s actual psychotherapy or shamanism or some combination of those things. These are drugs that have to be used in context. The ‘take two and call me in the morning’ model doesn’t work for these. These have to be used in a very highly controlled set and setting. So I think where the business model comes in is you have places where people can go and get this kind of therapy… Our whole bio-medical-industrial complex is set up to encourage Band-Aid solutions. You have a problem. You go see your psychiatrist. He has seven minutes, if he’s lucky, to talk to you. Here’s a prescription. Get out of here. That’s the way it works. With psychedelics, you actually have to have a therapist who will sit down and talk with you. This is a whole novel concept. So I think where the business potential comes in is to have centers of therapy where you can go and get psychedelic therapy. And the emphasis is more on the setting and the services provided than on the actual chemicals.”
So, I’m sorry, but this piece reads like one written by someone who has not kept up with developments on psychedelic research nor of someone with in depth familiarity of the history of the drug war and its subsequent influences on the abandonment of research of these substances.
Report comment