very good universecannon,

and Iboga and Caapi WERE PATENTED, but the patent expired in 1999, but check this source.

Jox

Detail on that aya patent: not really expired: it was rejected/revoked it on request:
http://www.ciel.org/Publ...ahuascalegalelements.pdf

It is hard to question that notion, unless they get a share of the pie : Cannabis comes to wall street

I shared that link on the previous page, but it shows rather clearly how most of the corporations, that have long abandoned their strive for quality services (whatever they are offering) and now focus on playing the business game, influence legislation and public opinion to increase their profit margin. Their way of thinking is clear-cut: Profit, cost reduction, eco-friendy and innovative image (or whatever image the marketing disciplines find consumers to be attracted to at a given period). It's just a cash generating concept, and it has the potential to become more powerful than governments themselves, by hiring mercenary armies to "protect their interests".

To sum up while attempting to bring the topic back as per the title, the effects of these laws were and still are rather dramatic. Mostly because the lack of research can let hysteria and fear prevail over reason, and this same lack of research "recruits" public opinion to the side of "the war on drugs" which has been extremely beneficial for the services involved (increased surveillance/wire-tapping, exploitation of drug-ridden lands and their resources illegitimately, promotion of the "reliability" and "caring spirit" of the FDA by diverting consumer attention to their suggestions, etc.).

To me the solution is somewhat simple, at least the method. Research draws the path for human testing, public is better informed, health services start to adopt therapeutic treatment with certain substances, and the demonisation becomes a faint argument.

We never see a wrongfully imprisoned innocent man getting released by shouting "I'm innocent" louder and louder. It takes fine adjustments and manipulations from units on the outside that can eventually trigger the system itself, to willingly and legitimately, unlock his cell.

The Neural,

very slick and thoughtful answer. Yet at the end I find it problematic:

It is precisely the research that is banned and the religious use that has the green light.

Politics LOVES religion, they are the same coin. Yet the courts may have some reason. So after the Age of Enlightenment, 300 years ago, we still don't have the access to "the reason".

I wish you would highlight the part you found problematic, I find it hard to follow your trail of thought on religion (which I did not mention, so it's even harder for me to understand your response).

Regardless, my main point was that discussing "the reason" behind psychoactive substance prohibition should take place in a different thread, since this one is preoccupied (following the title) with the damage this prohibition has done to research and treatment innovation, and what steps are being taken to tackle this issue.

Hi The Neural:

you talk of "lack of research":

1. in order to do research you need the permission/
2. the permission comes form the political body which is contemporary form of religion in play.
3. once research is legal, it goes to big pharma: you need to use their solvents, machines, and your paper will be published only if they want it to. If you are not part of the western world, your paper will not be published, no matter what.
4. once proven that is is useful, it goes again to the legislature or politics or religion, and corporate interests, to be implemented in society at large.
5. The Judge may be the source of reason, but event he judge works based on the ideology he personally belongs to.

none of this will ever happen to the mind plants.

and plants are like homosexuality, the face of evil at play.

The permission comes from an ethics board, which is a very different entity than a political party. Of course they are playing politics in a way, but very different from politics themselves, and even more different from religious politics. If one's ethics forms are superb, the ethics board is capable of even granting permission for cocaine testing on human subjects. Whether on not one is successful depends on the demonstrative and persuasive arguments that a researcher can shove in an ethical approval form, and on finding a lab that is willing to accept such a responsibility as to make e.g. 100grams of psilo. Until today, it is difficult to demonstrate past research on the usefulness of e.g. DMT, so everyone will think you're out of your mind to even suggest it. Nutt just got £550,000 for his psilocybin study, which shows that such approaches are feasible.



You as a researcher signed off a contract to conduct the research under a company's premises. Does not have to be pharmaceuticals unless that was the researcher's aim. David Nutt did not sign off with any pharmaceutical for his mdma study, collaboration of Channel 4 and BPS. Sometimes the arguments and the innovative potential of an approach, if carefully pitched, can grant you approval for human studies no matter where you are.

We just need to move from the mice to humans more often.



A prediction, rather pessimistic I would say. Don't forget that opium and cocaine were widely used, very often on the suggestion of the pharmacist; don't they belong to the "mind plants" as well?

My personal suggestion is to focus on the now, and not feeling desperate about the future (I do agree that it looks somewhat grim). Learning to work with the system might be key. Also, dropping the stereotypical comparison between the western "perception" and the eastern or whichever, would be wonderful; it only looks like playing the blame game "who is more right?". We are all different, between and within groups.



Only lately. Since everything changes and shifts, so will they.

Amen, Joedirt!

Sure, abusive junkies who include Psychedelics in their abuse exist. But I have NEVER come
across an abusive junkie who used ONLY psychedelics.

Abuse of Psychedelics, as far as I have encountered it personally, is allways incidental:
Junkies prefer Opiates, Benzos, Cocaine, Amphetamines(Speed, Meth & to some extent MDMA)

But sometimes none of these drugs are available or they're all out. In this case these junkies will go for LSD, DMT, Mescaline...or whatever other drug is available. Anything to
avoid getting sober. But Psychedelics are NEVER a junkie's first choice.

Go to one of those illegal raves where whole tribes of these troubled, harmfully hedonistic junkies come together, clear a table and put down several bowls, each filled with another drug. LSD in 1 bowl, DMT in the next, Cocaine in another & Amphetamines in the final bowl.
And let's put a 1 liter jug of strong Whiskey next to that.

And imagine you would refill each bowl whenever it was empty. Same for the Whiskey.
I would dare bet significant money on it that the Cocaine & Amphetamine-bowls would need ALOT more refilling than the DMT & LSD bowls. The Whiskey jug would probably require
most refilling.

Allthough this is just a theoretical experiment I never could nor would perform,
I have come across plenty scenes of abuse & have observed this phenomenon closely enough to know the Whiskey, the Cocaine & the Speed would have needed most refilling and the LSD and the DMT would barely be touched, except by a rare few Psychonauts & Curious, brave people(aspiring Psychonauts I suppose).


Junkies like to narrow their minds. They like to shrink their awareness to escape deep seathed, constant feelings of fear and/or grief and/or anger. IF these type of people ever
take Psychedelics it is usually when they're already heavily inebriated by Alcohol, Cocaine,
Amphetamine or MDMA.
Because of this, their consciousness is so significantly narrowed, that
even a high dose of, say, LSD wouldn't open their minds sufficiently anymore to allow for
the uncomfortable, but mind expanding confrontations with deep seathed psychological problems that Psychedelics CAN provide.

I have personally never seen one of these abusive junkies decide to take a Psychedelic as
their first choice, while sober. Junkies will always prefer to take th route of least resistance: This is why they continue their abuse and stay addicted: Going on is much easier than breaking their addiction(s): They encounter resistance.

Now Psychedelics tear apart your Ego. They break up the Personality you've built up back into loose, individual building blocks. They allow you to rebuild you Personality. And if you pay close attention to that process, you may rebuild yourself a stronger, more stable, more structurally sound Personality.

Now that drives me to continue using Psychedelics:
I desire deeply & passionately to keep growing and improving my Personality instead of being
blinded by pride, take a conservative stance and stiffle any progress or change & fearfully
hold on to who I think I am. I don't want to be a static entity: I can't be. I want to accept change and growth into my Life. I understand that to do that implies I'll also have to accept the discomfort & resistance that that change might bring. To grow I must be willing to accept Growth pains.

Now Junkies are terrified of any resistance. Any change. Any growth. Once or twice they might enjoy Psychedelic, but one of their psychedelics experiences will become their personal hell: Confrontation & Realisation.... And the growth pains that come with that.
Then they will freak out, possibly come out significantly damaged & dissociated & decide to
NEVER EVER in their lifetime to do Psychedelics ever again.


You can perform a million scientific studies on this subject and never really get any closer to proving or disproving what I and Joedirt say, but I have plenty of experience observing
hordes of abusive junkies in their hedonistic descent to hell(How Ironic, right?) long enough to know this simple truth:

Cocaine, Alcohol, Amphetamine, Methamphetamine & to some extent MDMA are all drugs that Narrow consciousness. They are "Feel-good" drugs, having a simplicity about that that allows for, even seduces to Escapism & burrying your problems deeply so as to not be aware of them.

This repressing of negative psychological/emotional experiences is very harmfull & creates a Jungian shadow; A second, sinister self comprised of all the negative material you repressed. Repressing these negative experiences is synonymous for breeding a horrific monster inside of your self. This monster will become a split off, wrathfull personality that can ruin your life, and the life of those around you, while the other, original you seems to remain completely unaware of this. This false, 2nd self will try and overrule the
original self compeltely and take over the whole self, bringing harm into the world.


Ignorance allows this false self(Ego) to grow while remaining under the radar.
That's why it loves Cocaine, Alcohol, Speed, MDMA and Meth: They are like radar
jammers, metaphorically speaking. It narrows the consciousness, allowing the Ego
to continue taking control of more and more of your thoughts, feelings and behaviour,
without you ever noticing. It is building a new Personality-structure of hatred, fear, jealousy, dispair, desire and lots of other negativity to slowly conquer the whole of your personality.

And yet all it takes to destroy this false, 2nd self's dominating personality is to
observe it with strongly focussed, unwavering attention.
Psychedelics allow & catalyse exactly this. And the False self seems to know this,
which is why abusive junkies, who are obviously completely overtaken by this Ego/False self,
always seem to instinctively fear Psychedelics.

^ what do all these points about junkies and the comparison between the effects of a set of substances with the effects of another set of substances, have to do with the thread's topic? Just out of interest.

Is it off Topic?


I didn't mean to derail this topic. I was just responding to
the dialogue that Joedirt & Infundibulum were having, which
I thought was on topic.

I think you were on topic with their discussion, not with the thread's topic.

Not that it matters, it's just a very interesting thread topic, and I personally would like to read more thoughts from members on what the title suggests, hence my inquiry.

Right on SKA,

my take on science is that it will DOCUMENT, the improvement and healing, and thus give us leverage in legal-political battles. What bothers me in the article, "to be true to the post" is that it talks of MDMA, LSD, recreational use, totally dated topics.

Jox

ps. in the age of tolerance, i am putting myself in trouble, BUT alcohol is evil: even the peyote and Ayahuasca shamans often are alcoholics.

I do not see how they are "dated". There is virtually no research conducted properly on humans with psychedelic substances, and the two that may be used safely for a duration of a therapeutic session are MDMA and Psilocybin. It makes sense to start research with those, since deeply rooted psychological issues are sought after therapists and the need for such research is warranted.

Why they are dated, because they didn't produce the deep healing we are looking form:

1. MDMA. I am a gay man and spend years with MDAMA parting. It has it merits, but...

2. LSD, mushrooms, are inpredictable, and are unsefe because the BAD trips are like PTSD in itself. The plants don't come even close to Iboga and DMT.

And in mass media, when word psychedelics we by default hear LSD and shrooms? Come on? Why Ikitos has international airport...

JOx

Jox, these just sound like your subjective feelings on the matter, and not really a summary of the wider situation. MDMA, lsd, and mushrooms have and will do wonders for helping people heal themselves of all sorts of psychological problems. Saying they don't produce "deep healing" like iboga and dmt sounds like an opinion which goes against what thousands if not millions of people have experienced. All of these things are different, but many can have a huge impact. I'm also sure many would agree and disagree, in a variety of ways, with the idea that one is unpredictable and "unsafe" while the other is not.

And for many who have broken through on mushrooms, they are are very very similar to dmt- so much so that you could almost call it oral dmt (but with a bit of its own character IME)

You know what Jox, from a usefulness point of view, you may be right. Iboga is indeed very straightforward on what use it could have in the human population at this point. I cannot say the same about DMT. DMT is very arbitrary in its subjective effects, while Iboga is somewhat understood from receptor affinity correlations and its biological significance for cesation of cravings for harmful behaviours.

To respond to your arguments:

1. You are but 1 sample, so "spent years with MDMA partying" is no way representative of what its use can be in a therapeutic setting, and needless to say, its mechanism is much more complex and useful than going out partying. Just because you went out partying does not mean that this is all its used for. Also, you can in no way compare yourself to countless cases of PTSD, that each of them is different from one another. Your statement of "being a gay man" is totally irrelevant, I do not see how it adds to your argument (not that there was any, you ended up with "but...", which usually is the part you explain since we are not telepathic).

2. Just like UC stated, it is pointless to argue which is more safe or less. We need to start from somewhere, and all you're doing (in my subjective observation) is finding a wonderful paper "problematic" because it does not get involved with your own personal preferences on substances.

I have a good suggestion for you. How about you train yourself in research methods, get a degree in a relevant field, apply for funding to conduct a study on a substance you prefer, explain why you need to study that substance, and manage to publish the paper. This is not a suggestion to "well, go do it yourself then". Not at all. This is a legitimate, sincere suggestion, and you expressed an interest by saying "they do not produce the type of healing we are looking for". We need more scientists with critical thinking who will get involved in these areas. All you are doing is scrutinising a paper that came about with great difficulty and skill, without knowing how fine the balances in the ethics boards are, yet you try to give the impression that "meh, they could have done it better". IMO, this is unnecessary, unhelpful, and honestly, a bit arrogant towards the author involved.

Hi Neural,

I am impressed with the respect you gave to my comment, you actually read it and put the best of yourself to understand it. Listening is rare in communication and is to be highly prized.

You have me thinking for two hours now, and I am still not there yet to post my answer, but couldn't help in responding with gratification.

Jox

I am glad you perceive this as a healthy debate, as do I, and not a personal scrutiny on your posts! This way we are in par with the Traveler's mission and our common ground, to collect and share the most accurate information regarding our beloved plants; all this under a vigorous light to spot misinformation and personal biases (personal biases are inevitable due to our human nature anyway, it's just nice when someone else can point it out).

Seems like way too much "my drug is better than yours" attitude here. Now if we could just find a drug to treat that form of mental sickness...

I'm sure David Nutt is picking his battles. But it really should be pointed out that ANY regulation on science by anyone other than a scientist's peers has a major chilling effect on all kinds of research.

The fact that we let morally bankrupt ignoramuses regulate scientists that have dedicated their lives to something that actually benefits society should be a tremendous shame and embarrassment to our society.

Without regulation by the FDA/DEA/politicians medical science would be decades if not centuries ahead of where we are today.

There's absolutely no reason it should cost $1.3 Billion to bring a new drug to market. Our extortion and bribery based systems of government are the root problem of all this. The government extorts a large sum from big pharma, who then use that as justification to extort 10-100 times that amount from the sick. A truly disgusting system.

The extortion system pervades all of medicine, not just illegal drugs. Illegal drugs don't fit into the extortion system because there's no legal way to fit it in with extorting the end users like there is with other drugs.


-FF

Yes there is a way, to experimentally attribute positive parameters on psychedelics (e.g. Nutt). Generally, this condemning attitude has saturated this thread. Yes, we all agree about the root of the problem, we should focus on new papers and suggestions on how to remedy it.



This was a pretty obnoxious and uninformed claim. We tackled that earlier on in this thread, please read it through before you post; that way, we can have clean threads that do not ruminate over and over on the same issues.