Because he's talking like he thinks the study is a scam to pave the way for legalization of psychedelics, and he does this by comparing it to the legalization of marijuana. This goes against my worldview for multiple reasons:
1) Psychedelic therapy is a promising treatment for mental health issues
2) Legalization of psychedelics might actually be a GOOD idea
3) The legalization of medical marijuana was a step in the RIGHT direction, toward the overdue legalization of marijuana
This guy is skeptical of #1 and seems to believe the opposite of #2 and #3. So yeah, I don't like him, and I think his beliefs are misguided and harmful.
The article blatantly edited out those reasons and rearranged his quotes to give this doctor an anti-psilocybin crusading slant. It worked, you immediately dislike him not knowing what his real concerns are, and were just given an out of context snippet.
His concerns are already on record in medical journals (sadly mostly paywalled) about using Psilocybin on cancer patients http://www.ascopost.com/issues/may-10-2015/a-cautionary-note... and it has to do with peer review. The comparison with medical marijuana is that they did not do reproduction or review on those studies and then the research was used to shove through legalized marijuana and he wants more research and review this time around before dosing patients with hallucinogens.
>The article blatantly edited out those reasons and rearranged his quotes to give this doctor an anti-psilocybin crusading slant. It worked, you immediately dislike him not knowing what his real concerns are, and were just given an out of context snippet.
Probably. But then again, I cannot imagine what his concerns about marijuana are in general, since we've had studies on marijuana for 50+ years now and there's really no scientific basis for banning it or not using it for "other purposes" (besides medical), any more than there's e.g. for smoking in general.
There really needs to be a proper social debate about the place drugs (including alcohol) have or ought to have within society. No, the current hysteria and scattershot approach is not sufficient. I'm thinking a one time town hall type event where this damn problem is solved once and for all.
I'm all for medical research, but using medical reasons (aka "medicalization") to legitimize psychoactive substances in general doesn't have quite the integrity I think is needed.
And to try and constrain psychoactive substances entirely to the medical sphere, as so many would like to do I think, is problematic as well.
Any substances should be "legitimized" by default, unless they have known harmful effects. The onus should be on those that demand a ban or regulation to demonstrate the need for it.
It's how we handle all things in general. Drugs are that one weird exception (and then there are exceptions from that exception, like alcohol).
>Any substances should be "legitimized" by default, unless they have known harmful effects.
We don't ban chlorine. Or paint thinner. And, yes, we don't consume those either (although, some do sniff glue), but no reason to not having even things with "known harmful effects" be legit between adults in their own time.
What I was talking about is the sale of substances that are 1) advertised specifically for consumption, and 2) have known highly harmful effects when consumed as advertised. This is similar to regulating poisonous food. You can still buy poison and food separately, and combine them if you really want to. So this is not about possession.
For possession, I can think of only two reasons why it should ever be regulated. One is when the substance requires special handling to store safely, and can e.g. leak into the environment and affect others if handled improperly. I'm not sure if there are any drugs that are in this category. Presumably, at least some of them could be in sufficient quantities. But even then, this would be regulating safe storage, not possession per se.
The other reason is when a substance, when consumed, is likely to make the person highly dangerous to others - a hypothetical example would be a drug that reliably induces violent rage, and that has no other legitimate use (e.g. not a beneficial drug in smaller doses).
Because his argument boils down to "It's better than patients should have to suffer needlessly than that someone might perhaps, in the future, be allowed to take drugs for fun."
1) Psychedelic therapy is a promising treatment for mental health issues
2) Legalization of psychedelics might actually be a GOOD idea
3) The legalization of medical marijuana was a step in the RIGHT direction, toward the overdue legalization of marijuana
This guy is skeptical of #1 and seems to believe the opposite of #2 and #3. So yeah, I don't like him, and I think his beliefs are misguided and harmful.