In reading about the history of pharmacology this morning, I discovered that it never occurred to the leaders in that field that the scientific method might not apply to certain subjects. Yet how can you apply the scientific method to the study of a psychedelic whose benefits depend on one's attitude toward those substances, as the indigenous might put it, or on the "set and setting," as American psychonauts might say? The scientific method tells us to limit the variables that we wish to study to a few important ones. But how does the researcher choose what's important when it comes to human behavior? Who died and made them God that they could make that call in the first place? Meanwhile, a litany of philosophical concerns arise when we start talking about using blinding in such cases. The researcher's attempt to avoid the placebo effect is highly problematic. Indeed, blinding is unethical in the case of the study of psychedelics, where the results of use are so obviously a joint production of both the user and the drug itself. To use blinding is to encourage "bad trips," since it forces study participants to encounter psychedelic effects without the requisite psychological and/or spiritual preparation. Nor will researchers see the expected predictable correlations between dose and response when studying psychedelics, since a small dose may facilitate a profound response while a large dose may result in nothing -- all thanks to the fact that the user, for some reason that may be clear or mysterious, is not particularly susceptible to the drug's beneficial effects at the specific time of use.Materia Medica (Wikipedia) 6, The Origins of Pharmacology in the 16th Century 7, The Early Development of Psychopharmacology in America 8, A Historical Overview of Pharmacology 9, History of Pharmacy in the United States (Wikipedia) 10, History of Pharmacology: From Herbal Traditions to Modern Science 11, The Pharmaceutical Sciences in America, 1852-1902 12
All drugs have potential positive uses for somebody, at some dose, in some circumstance, alone or in combination. To decide in advance that a drug is completely useless is an offense to reason and to human liberty.
The FDA tells us that MDMA is not safe. This is the same FDA that signs off on Big Pharma drugs whose advertised side effects include death itself.
ECT is like euthanasia. Neither make sense in the age of prohibition.
Had the FDA been around in the Indus Valley 3,500 years ago, there would be no Hindu religion today, because they would have found some potential problem with the use of soma.
Scientists cannot tell us if using drugs is worth the risk any more than they can tell us if free climbing is worth the risk, or horseback riding or parkour.
Both physical and psychological addiction can be successfully fought when we relegalize the pharmacopoeia and start to fight drugs with drugs. But prohibitionists do not want to end addiction, they want to scare us with it.
I just can't believe... [image]
If anyone manages to die during an ayahuasca ceremony, it is considered a knockdown argument against "drugs." If anyone dies during a hunting club get-together, it is considered the victim's own damn fault.
National Geo published an article entitled "Coca: a Blessing and a Curse." Coca was never a curse. Most people used it wisely, just as most people drink wisely. Doctors demonized it because it really worked and it could put them out of business. https://abolishthedea.com/sigmund_freuds_real_breakthrough_was_not_psychoanalysis.php
Thomas Szasz was not an extremist when it comes to drugs. The extremists are those who feel that psychiatrists know more about our mind and mood than we do.
(up)