|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Complex Numbers #1007361 added March 31, 2021 at 12:02am
Restrictions: None
The Cure
Going back to Scientific American for this one.
Just to be clear, here, I haven't used psychedelics. Some people I know have. What I have had is depression, and meds that never worked for it.
In 2012, I had my first psychedelic experiences, as a subject in a clinical trial at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine’s Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit.
Pretty sure you don't have to go to Johns Hopkins to find shrooms in Baltimore.
Prior to their 1971 prohibition, psilocybin and LSD were administered to approximately 40,000 patients, among them people with terminal cancer, alcoholics and those suffering from depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The results of the early clinical studies were promising, and more recent research has been as well.
Some drugs are legitimately dangerous. Some are only dangerous in context; I wouldn't want to encounter a tripper (or a drunk) driving on the road. Many are considered dangerous but probably have medicinal benefits; I've always seen shrooms as one of those. The main reason for prohibition in their case is we can't have people thinking for themselves, making their own decisions, or exploring alternative mental states; if people did all that, where would capitalism find its wage slaves?
Eight years after my sessions, researchers continue to prove the same point again and again in an ongoing effort to turn psychedelic drug therapy into FDA-sanctioned medical treatment.
To be fair, "prove" is a bad word here. Research supports (or doesn't); it can disprove, but it can't "prove."
Psychedelic drug therapy subverts the timeworn patriarchal hierarchy by creating an atmosphere of cooperation and trust rather than competition and domination.
Gender-Studies-like-typing detected. Doesn't mean it's wrong, though.
MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) is rapidly proving effective in treating PTSD.
Chemical names can sound scary (if, that is, one can pronounce them at all). They shouldn't. As I've harped on too many times already, everything we ingest is made up of chemicals, and I guarantee you a lot of them have long names. Granted, this one includes "methamphetamine," but it's important to note that MDMA (aka Ecstasy or Molly) is not meth.
The success of the cancer studies has led to investigational treatment for patients suffering from intractable depression, early-stage Alzheimer’s, anorexia nervosa and smoking addiction.
On the other foot, there's a long history of Puritanical pearl-clutching in the US, and any medicine that alters one's mental state is frowned upon (including alcohol, which in fairness is probably way more dangerous than cannabis or psychedelics). This alone is probably what's been stalling approval of effective therapies. There's also this persistent idea that we should be self-sufficient, and not turn to altered states of consciousness to relieve the pain of everyday life. That's pernicious.
Clearly, abuse of any drug (or any substance in general) has its dangers, but personally, I'd like to see a follow-up on these studies of psychedelics. I still have little desire to use them recreationally, but this is one thing science is for: to get closer and closer to the truth. Some say psychedelics help with that on a personal level; why not combine the two?
Anyway, check out the article, if you can get past the gender-studies lingo involved. |
© Copyright 2021 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
