Sorry, I'm still learning the ropes here. But I don't think it can ever be pointed out too frequently that the "my drug is better than yours" attitude is the root of all of our prohibition related problems.

Changing this attitude is the first step in fixing all the problems of our current system, so it's relevant to this thread regardless of how many times it's been stated before.

> Yes there is a way, to experimentally attribute positive parameters on psychedelics

It's been done by quite a few researchers. But it seems the only people ever convinced by this logic is other researchers, who aren't the problem in the first place.

> we should focus on new papers and suggestions on how to remedy it.

More important than new papers is a way to translate this information into real world promotional ideas for reform. It's going to take angry people in the streets to ever change anything in this area, and the way to get them out is to make them realize that they're the ones getting screwed by prohibition.

More specifically in this context, people need to realize how much research restrictions hurt them in terms of money, suffering, and lives.

If you hope for results you need to focus on the root of the problem and issues that are going to be popular. Psychedelics isn't a good start for that. They're not particularly medicinal or popular.

I think it's better to focus on something like how many Americans the FDA kills by suppressing research results from being included in product labeling. Too much research is just not done because of restrictions like these.


-FF

Again, this stopped a few posts back, bringing it back into the thread is just plain recycling. No it is not "regardless of how many times". We need clean threads, and you will not "convince" someone of your personal opinion by repeating the same mantra over and over again.

Regarding the rest, thanks for your contribution of ideas. I particularly agree with this :



This observation (of the impact) is always included in research papers to justify the need of a particular experiment to get funded. Usually, it is quite detailed. From there, reporters interpret the paper subjectively, and some objectively. We need to bring those objective (or favourable) articles in the light. Like these :

'Absurd' drug laws 'hinder research'

Professor Nutt Is Still Fighting Against the UK's 'Moronic' Drugs Laws