Prompted by “Professor David Nutt: Why Banning LSD and Magic Mushrooms is the Worst Censorship of Medicine in World History”: http://psypressuk.com/2015/07/30/professor-david-nutt-why-banning-lsd-and-magic-mushrooms-is-the-worst-censorship-of-medicine-in-world-history/
Hearing him talk at Breaking Convention about how laws are making it very difficult to research psychedelic drugs, makes it feel like the human race is missing out on something: a giant leap for medicine that politicians are happy to shun. When the idea that psychedelics like LSD and psilocybin (the compound found in magic mushrooms) can be used to treat a variety of mental health issues, such as addictions, anxiety and depression, why wouldn’t you want to delve into the rabbit hole of research, and see where it takes you?
Because any assumption that all human beings serve to advance humanity at any cost is fallacious. In other words, mental illness is powerfully present globally (especially the “elephant in the room” illness called egotism — responsible for untold suffering throughout history) to powerfully sustain mental illness.
A lot of people are very angry that they have been denied to the public as medicines for over 50 years. My own view is that this is the worst censorship of medicine and clinical research in the history of the world.
Psychedelics are the first class of symphonic drugs. They’re oceanic in styling options, so offer ample ways to affect mentality from worst through best. That latter quality of that extreme spectrum comes from responsible usage. That begins with responsible creation of psychedelics (topnotch product quality), continues with effective education for everyone involved, and ends with the user leveraging that education to minimize the risk of usage, so that risk is on par with commonly accepted activities. That responsibility is easily achieved, partially because psychedelic impact can be controllably set to even literally one tiniest step from sobriety — providing numerous possibilities for positive and mild (safe) psychedelic use.
Professor Nutt and his team, along with the Beckley Foundation, have been busy pioneering the use of techniques called ‘brain imaging’ to explore how psychedelics work in the brain. They have achieved three studies with psilocybin and have just completed the world’s first ever brain-imaging study with LSD, and the results are exciting for scientists, doctors and patients alike.
“We’ve [discovered] that these drugs have quite profound effects, for instance, they switch off the part of the brain that causes depression. Now we’re doing a trial using psilocybin to treat depression because we think where conventional treatments fail, psilocybin might work.”
As the human body is a highly complex system of energy currents (according to mainstream physics), it makes sense that symphonic drugs would have serious effect upon health.
However, the medical community is apparently dominantly insistent that only sharply focused drugs are responsible, so medical cannabis (for prime example) is “snake oil” to them.
The real joke (of the severely tragic variety) comes from the ‘bloodletting by leeches’ era of sharply focused brain drugs. Factually speaking, humanity is in the very early stages of understanding the brain — a muscle with an estimated 100 billion neurons. The odds of unintended consequences are terribly high (as partially evident by the serious side effects of commonly prescribed brain drugs), and the medical community should know better than to dismiss ample amounts of positive psychedelic experiences. That includes the many success stories from medical cannabis use — e.g. my mom successfully using state-sanctioned cannabis with precise strain selection to at least brilliantly oppose harsh symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (at least matching the best claims of relevant traditional pharmaceutical alternatives — but at a far better cost point and minimal side effects).
Psychedelics (which, memory serving, are even responsible for introducing humanity to the modern understanding of neurochemistry) demonstrate a serious improvement to consciousness upon proper use. That’s a signal to humanity to strongly research this new class of medicine utterly competitively crushing traditional pharmaceuticals these days.
But even though the outcome of these tests has proved quite promising, the stumbling blocks to this research are still present. The biggest and most obvious challenge is that these drugs are illegal.
Psychedelics are illegal nationally, insanely because of an obvious (and illegal) judicial redefining of the Commerce Clause (supposedly negating the need for a constitutional amendment similar to the one necessary for Alcohol Prohibition).
It’s a horrific racket forming an overwhelming amount of mass suffering for which the mainstream media cannot be bothered to constantly challenge on behalf of their journalism code of ethics (quite the contrary, the fact is they’re a powerful part of that racket).
A vicious circle, “community leaders” (including medical ones) proclaim more research is needed prior to legalizing psychedelics. However, psychedelic illegality at least excessively prevents that research, which leads back to that proclamation (loop to taste, while literally many millions of people needlessly suffer).
But when there’s lives at stake, isn’t it about time the Government turned their heads and tuned in their ears, instead of copping out whenever they catch wind that perhaps these so-called ‘bad drugs’ can actually be useful?
“The world needs to wake up to the potential of drugs like LSD and psilocybin, and also cannabis,” proclaims Professor Nutt. “These drugs have enormous potential. Every day that goes on with these drugs illegal, patients are suffering; patients are committing suicide because they are not getting treated for their depressions or their pain. So, it is a priority for medicine in the world to reverse these laws.”
Indeed, but mental illness in powerful people (too often masters of reason abuse to unethically sustain their power) is obviously difficult to uproot — which is why preventative law is necessary (i.e. a fundamental law ensuring that popular mental illness does not lead to mass-harmful laws exacerbating mental illness towards a feedback loop of unhealthy stress increasing our species’ risk of extinction).
Our nation — established in a violent revolution against abusive law — has such preventative law (unalienable right to liberty judicially reinforced by amendment nine in our Constitution), but severely selfish mental illness has judicially (ironically illegally) disabled that key prevention — resulting in a wildly impactful and uncontrollable “rule-of-law” igniting mass suffering and public outrage endangering us all (e.g. see police thuggery against non-violent citizens by way of the war on some drugs, and consequently backlash violence against law enforcement). A highly refined explanation of this critical and fundamental point is freely available in my Liberty Shield informational roots introducing the inevitably needed application of scientific constitutionalism to end favoritism against public safety.
It all comes down to control.
Pharmaceutical companies cannot patent psychedelics, so they only have incentive to lobby for sustaining their illegality. Cannabis (for prime example) is effective and inexpensive upon proper use, and at least instantly replaces the vast majority (if not all) psychological pharmaceuticals for a major health boost for society, but selfish favoritism disguised and consequently sold to the public as responsible medical professionalism trumps wisdom — an undeniable loss for humanity.
Control is not limited to private sector competition (actually illegal anti-competition). Due to the vast flexibility offered by psychedelics, while that flexibility is awesome (if not glorious) in allowing the right mental fit for any user, that flexibility also offers an oceanic set of misfitting experiences logically forming more mental illness. Recklessly playing around with this seriously powerful class of mental drugs (even cannabis) is idiotic, and that raises legitimate public concern. Yet another demonstrably failed prohibition (and even complex regulatory structuring — i.e. textured prohibition) is obviously not the answer, and only effective education remains to address that concern (a serious opportunity for responsible entertainers — e.g. yours truly).
Controlling psychedelics is like controlling any overwhelmingly complex system. That system needs to fundamentally flow naturally, while responsible people leverage experiences to form better guidance encouraging proper use to minimize harm.
To truly maximally control psychedelics, the law needs to promptly be removed from this health issue.
Then research that focuses upon popular psychedelic styles (e.g. Blue Dream cannabis strain) can flow unhindered by passionately mass-embraced mental illness (a problem ironically relieved by proper psychedelic experiences). Without considering the oceanic set of mental filtration possibilities by any psychedelic drug (at least most research unacceptably dismisses this key stylistic consideration), and then scientifically factor in any researched style with absolute precision (as the scientific method clearly effectively demands) — there’s no true science on the matter — because psychological styling is obviously a major factor. Psychedelic styles can dramatically differ from each other — e.g. Blue Dream versus Platinum OG Kush.
Responsible psychedelic use is a powerful advancement against mental illness (especially against egotism), and would dramatically change society for the better. However, opponents of that responsibility want to keep their mental illness, because mental illness dictates mass denial and all of the supposed power (e.g. financial rewards) accompanying that severely society-agitating insanity.
More information about promptly uprooting legal hindrance to psychedelic responsibility is freely available in my Respect Cannabis campaign’s information roots (only roughly the length of a long article).
It’s time to really “grab the insanity bull by the horns”. Are you with us?