
Research into psychedelics, shut down for decades, is yielding results (2015) - arikr
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment
======
beepboopbeep
One of the worst things that comes from the banning of drugs is the stigma
attached to it in order to give reason to ban it. That stigma just doesn't let
go no matter what evidence is being presented.

Case in point are the incredible studies by the folks at Johns Hopkins on
Psilocybin. They're not feeding people hallucinogenic mushrooms, they're
giving them controlled doses of manufactured psilosybin. Incredible studies,
very interesting in all ways, but the news headline is almost always some
shitty pun or stupid jab about 'shrooms or "trippy" or "far out" which
immediately demeans the research in the readers mind.

This usually continues through the text. The author will describe the study,
effects, results, etc. then punctuate it with some dumb line about it being
groovy. Makes it embarassing to be associated with the results when we could
be looking at some truly breakthrough approaches to therapy and who knows what
else.

~~~
jjawssd
Obfuscation of the true nature of the research might help in this case.

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also
referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium
Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl
radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell
membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic
components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous
compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

[http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html](http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)

Learn more about the dangers of DHMO here

------
anigbrowl
Also: _He is also the director of the substance-abuse division at Bellevue,
and he told me that he had known little about psychedelics [..] until a
colleague happened to mention that, in the nineteen-sixties, LSD had been used
successfully to treat alcoholics. Ross did some research and was astounded at
what he found._

How do you get to be director of a drug abuse program at one of the nation's
top hospitals while being so ignorant about the field you supervise?! I'm not
saying he should have been a fan of psychedelics all along, but he should at
least have had some awareness of their history and how they came to be
controlled substances.

~~~
qwartor
There are two parts to the characterization at play here:

1\. Psychedelics are not "abused" in the same way that other substances are.
Furthermore, when psychedelics do get abused, the adverse effects are
expressed differently, and patients are not routed through the same treatment
channels that addictive substances see. Since psychedelics aren't addictive,
users usually don't need ongoing maintenance to prevent relapses. Instead,
victims of psychedelic side effects usually suffer from catastrophic burnouts
after the mother of all bad trips, or persistent neurological symptoms creep
in after a period of experimentation, and remain possibly for life. Once that
happens people quit cold turkey, and cope with their flashbacks however they
must.

2\. Being a director of anything isn't a huge deal. It's not much of an
auspicious title. Like manager or vice president, after you meet a thousand of
them, big deal. Meanwhile, as for doctors, you'd be shocked at how sheltered
some doctors are. Many of the doctors I've met only became doctors because
their parents forced them into it, and they spent their youth locked in their
bedrooms getting good grades, and those geeky scholarly habits stick with them
into middle age. It wouldn't surprise me to meet a doctor who is a total
outsider to the patient population their supposedly expected to treat through
book learnin'...

~~~
anigbrowl
Your point #2 is pretty good, but I was surprised because every psychiatrist
I've ever met has taken psychedelics, and doctors enjoy getting high just as
much as the rest of the population.

But even so, I thought it would be the sort of thing someone would know about
just through a general awareness of current events. I've never taken a flying
lesson but I know who the Wright brothers are, that their first successful
flight was in 1903, the basic control mechanisms of all aeroplanes, and a
bunch of other rudimentary aeronautical knowledge. I thought most people had a
vague idea of who timothy Leary was and that a drug named LSD was quite
popular in the 1960s and so on - it's not exactly obscure.

~~~
razakel
>But even so, I thought it would be the sort of thing someone would know about
just through a general awareness of current events. I've never taken a flying
lesson but I know who the Wright brothers are, that their first successful
flight was in 1903, the basic control mechanisms of all aeroplanes, and a
bunch of other rudimentary aeronautical knowledge. I thought most people had a
vague idea of who timothy Leary was and that a drug named LSD was quite
popular in the 1960s and so on - it's not exactly obscure.

You're living in a bubble. You're the exception.

The general public are actually by and large incredibly ignorant. Do some
research into literacy rates if you want to be terrified.

Ask the average man on the street to name five Enlightenment philosophers and
he'll just stare at you blankly.

~~~
majewsky
Five Enlightenment philosophers? That would be hard for me, too. Probably
because I don't know which philosophers count as Enlightenment period.

In decreasing order of confidence: Kant, Voltaire, Hegel, Rousseau, Nietzsche.
How many points do I receive?

~~~
3131s
Aren't Hegel and Nietzsche too late to be considered Enlightenment
philosophers? I'm intentionally not looking it up since I wanna see if I pass
the test too... I'll add Hume and Spinoza as replacements, but please don't
ask me to elaborate on what any of these people actually contributed to our
societal body of knowledge :)

~~~
mercer
Speaking of Hume, I rather enjoyed this article:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-
davi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-david-hume-
helped-me-solve-my-midlife-crisis/403195/)

------
Nursie
The more I read the more my belief is reinforced that the war on drugs has
been a huge disservice to humanity in so many ways.

From the social problems caused by illegality and the restriction of decent
pain relief for the dying to the brake put on valuable research like this.

All for what? Some sense of moral purity?

Humans societies fascinate and disgust me.

~~~
jupiter2
> war on drugs has been a huge disservice to humanity in so many ways. ... All
> for what? Some sense of moral purity?

I was, and still remain to a great deal, very anti-drug. Unless there's a
system to manage it effectively, people _will_ abuse drugs. It _will_ destroy
their lives. Let's not downplay the impact here.

I've seen the negative effects far too often - from destruction of families to
young girls prostituting themselves for their next fix to brutal crimes. It's
horrific.

The actual "War on Drugs" has always been a half-hearted effort. It has served
as a political talking point and a means to control/surveil the population
through fear-mongering. In much the same way that terrorism is being used to
increased the powers of the surveillance state.

I do agree with its' usage related to medical purposes or in any way that it
can be __effectively managed __as a recreational activity (but I have doubts
about the general population being able to manage harder drugs).

Having said this, there is great value in research. I saw the value of
research for the first time when I read ' _DMT: The Spirit Molecule_ ' by Rick
Strassman, M.D.[1]. It was truly an eye-opening experience for this particular
(naturally occurring) drug.

It led me to read (for a while, many years ago) about other psychedelics as
well as the research and personal stories related to their usage. Amazing
stuff when managed correctly.

[1]
[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892819278?redirect=true&p...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892819278?redirect=true&pldnSite=1)

~~~
Nursie
You've fallen into several traps there. The major one is that you, like those
that wage the war, always leap to the hardest and worst examples and paint
broad strokes about all drugs from a few stories of the depths of addiction,
usually to opiates or methamphetamine.

The second is that you look at lives destroyed by 'drugs' without looking at
the lives destroyed by the war, which pushes profits to cartels, destabilises
entire countries and actually harms the people it claims to help.

Ending the war on drugs doesn't mean having a free for all, it means using
evidence to weigh up the best course of action. With some substances that's
likely legalisation and sale to adults under license. With others it may be
medical supervision.

Banning anything psychoactive is not an evidence-based action towards harm
reduction.

~~~
jupiter2
It was you who generalized about ALL drugs. I responded to that in the same
general way. Then, despite my temperate and reasonable response (open to
discussion about psychedelics, not psychoactives), you proceeded to create a
strawman and burn it down. This, despite the fact that, under certain
circumstances, I agree about some of the benefits of legalization - as I very
clearly stated.

You can go on talking to yourself and the imaginary puppet you created but
I'll follow up with this:

Like the other responses I've received that seem to come from children with NO
real world experience. I ask you too: have you any experience with addicts?
Have you ever asked a recovering addict if he/she would ever start using
(psychoactive) drugs again if they were legal?

Of course not. The safe place where you're writing from is painful to interact
with. Your response is practically a copy/paste from some hot trending topic
from the pages of a marijuana user.

Don't presume to know where I formed my opinion. Some of us aren't children
jumping on the latest hot topic with the fervor of an ignorant SJW. Some of us
have lived through decades of this. fucking. shit.

Do NOT clump all drugs together in some ignorant Shangri–la dance. Unless
you've experienced the effects of drugs in your own personal life, don't
diminish their effects on people you probably never interact with. I doubt you
care through your pseudo-cognitive dissonance.

You state that "sale to adults" would somehow, magically make addiction a non-
issue with some legislation. For the love of Spock! People can't control the
food they eat but they can somehow manage addictive drugs? That has NEVER
happened. The naivete you engage in is far more dangerous than laughable.

You think for a second that even the least harmful drug isn't going to get
taxed through the roof - creating yet another black market. The government
can't control itself. You have to have seen it with cigarettes and now sugary
drinks being taxed out of reach. Are you even living in the same world as
everyone else?

Discuss a solution that makes sense. Talk real research. Separate the drug
types. Some can be legalized, some should never see the light of day. And for
God's sake - use some critical thinking: it's one hell of a drug.

~~~
Nursie
I certainly didn't generalise about all drugs, I made a point about the war on
drugs.

Straw man yourself.

The rest of your post is barely more than hysterics.

------
noahdesu
While this is from last year, today the FDA approved phase 3 trials of MDMA
for PTSD ([http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-
ecstasy.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-ecstasy.html)).

------
eevilspock
_“They were saying things like ‘I understand love is the most powerful force
on the planet,’ or ‘I had an encounter with my cancer, this black cloud of
smoke.’ People who had been palpably scared of death—they lost their fear. The
fact that a drug given once can have such an effect for so long is an
unprecedented finding. We have never had anything like it in the psychiatric
field.”_

This is needed by everyone, not just those dying of cancer.

Nearly everyone is infected with the cancer of cynicism. We are overcome by
fear, too weak to do the right thing, condemned to remain prisoners of the
dilemma, perpetual losers in the non-zero sum game of life. It is the source
of nearly all human created folly, misery and tragedy, this election simply
being a recent example. If only there was a drug that would get people to
realize love can be the most powerful force on the planet, if only we had the
strength of will and courage to actually love, to risk ourselves rather than
play it "safe" behind self-servingly cynical justifications for doing the shit
we actually do.

~~~
swombat
Worth sharing:

"What is love?"

"The total absence of fear."

"What is it that we fear?"

"Love."

(De Mello)

~~~
SamUK96
Mathematical break down of that:

let x = love; let y = fear; let z = lack of fear.

This statement is basically saying:

x = z; y = x; => y = z; => We fear the lack of fear.

Sorry but that quote is basically 90% redundant, with x ("love") being a
trivial parametric, eliminatable variable.

~~~
zelias
Your comment is proof that it's next to impossible to reduce the nature of the
human condition down to ironclad mathematical concepts.

~~~
qohen
Relevant XKCD: [https://xkcd.com/55/](https://xkcd.com/55/)

------
jonasvp
This is from 2015 and has been discussed before with some very interesting
comments:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8991025](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8991025)

~~~
pmoriarty
Just out of curiosity, how did you find that link?

I just tried doing a search on DDG for:

    
    
      site:news.ycombinator.com "trip treatment"
    

and it didn't seem to return anything relevant.

~~~
fragmede
I found it by plugging "[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-
treatment"](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment") into
the search button at the bottom of an HN page.

------
anigbrowl
At any other time in history I'd be excited about this. Under the incoming
administration, I rather doubt the DEA is going to keep issuing research
licenses for controlled substances.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Do we know which governments throughout the world are more liberal in this
regard?

I'd like to think if there was a place this sort of research could take place
_someone_ or some pharmaceutical company would be there doing it?

~~~
pmoriarty
I've read of psychedelic research done in Mexico, Portugal, Switzerland, and
the Netherlands. MAPS has information on some international studies being
carried out on psychedelics.[1] Erowid probably has some too.[2]

(Curious how MAPS is HTTP and Erowid is HTTPS.)

[1] - [http://www.maps.org/research](http://www.maps.org/research)

[2] -
[https://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/research/](https://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/research/)

------
crdb
On the subject, if you've ever wondered what would happen if the US military
were to invest millions of dollars into testing all kind of things from sarin
to their version of super-strong LSD on volunteers (and, generally, why there
was an actual queue from enlisted men to sign up to be the guinea pig for
chemical weapons!), I recommend Ketchum's book about his time in exactly such
a facility [1]. There's a wealth of data and analysis on the impact of many
psychedelics on humans, both at large doses and for long term exposure.

The anecdote that stayed with me was the guy who liked to show off the
relative safety of _liquid_ VX (yes, the nerve agent) to new arrivals by
dipping his finger in it then rinsing it with water. Different times.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Warfare-Secrets-Almost-
Forgo...](https://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Warfare-Secrets-Almost-
Forgotten/dp/B01FKTZP3W/) \- Chemical Warfare Secrets Almost Forgotten: A
Personal Story of Medical Testing of Army Volunteers, by James S. Ketchum MD

------
overcast
I did my own research as a freshmen in the late 90's. In my opinion, everyone
should experience LSD/Mushrooms at some point in their life. They were some of
the most influential, and amazing experiences I've ever had. No dependency
issues, and lasts for hours.

------
ajryan
Anyone interested psychedelic users' perspectives on harm reduction, health
benefits, and risks should check out [http://erowid.org](http://erowid.org)
and [http://bluelight.org](http://bluelight.org) (especially the Psychedelic
Drug Discussion subforum).

------
nicklovescode
would appreciate a [2015]. Into this subject and thought it was a new result.

~~~
drvdevd
Since you're into the subject, at the risk of repeating my other comment in
this page and seeming to oversell it, I'd like to call your attention to the
documentary "Dirty Pictures" (if you haven't seen it):
[https://youtu.be/qXHyKyoHJzo](https://youtu.be/qXHyKyoHJzo)

It's mostly of historical/political interest, but I'm repeating it here
because I genuinely think if you're interested and somewhat knowledgable about
this subject, you really should _watch_ it.

------
skc
I'm not knowledgeable on this topic but I'm a bit surprised that the article
doesn't at any time make reference to Rick Strassman and his clinical
experiments with DMT. In fact, I've noticed that LSD and DMT are very rarely
referenced within the same academic discussions.

------
drvdevd
To any HN reader interested in this subject, I can't recommend this
documentary highly enough:
[https://youtu.be/qXHyKyoHJzo](https://youtu.be/qXHyKyoHJzo)

[edit: the sheer amount of US history exposed in this documentary on the
subject is incredible]

------
RCortex
"This is far too valuable to limit to sick people"

Not a word about the major negative side effects including panic attacks,
seizures, and death, or how some members of the population are at far greater
risk of experiencing these side effects for reasons we do not yet know or
fully understand.

Sure, if it helps someone near death why not, but I don't like the rosy
picture this article portrays.

~~~
WhitneyLand
I'm not aware of these drugs directly causing the death of anyone (excluding
someone driving on the freeway after taking them). Do you have an example of a
fatality?

As for the other unpleasant effects it's true these can happen temporarily. I
know some people anecdotally believe negative effects can be permanent, but
I'm not aware of any research supporting cause and effect.

Now weigh the risks above with the possible reward. Near death comfort (while
important) is only one application. For example anxiety and OCD are life
crippling for so many people, and research suggest psychedelics might offer
one of the best treatments yet.

The potential benefits to society are so great, the research must continue. I
also see no reason you could not help out with some empirical study.

~~~
echlebek
I found a reference to LSD directly killing someone. They injected 320,000 ug
intravenously!

[https://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=220](https://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=220)

~~~
hvidgaard
To put that in perspective, the "typical" dosis according to wikipedia is
~200ug.

For comparison, if you drink 10L of water, 200 espresso shots, or 600ml of 40%
alcohol in one setting, you are likely to die.

~~~
blubb-fish
Let's assume a psychoactive vodka dose of 10ml and a typical dose of 100ug
LSD:

Then the respective vodka dose would be 10ml x (320'000ug / 100ug) = 10ml x
3200 = 32000ml = 32 l

Obviously vodka would be deadly at an amount way below 32l.

