A close psychedelic therapist and researcher friend asked me to summarise existing scientific evidence of potential benefits of psychedelic usage among "healthy normals" on behalf of a potentially interested funder...this led to this paper, I thought it might be worth sharing this information in open access paper form in case it is of interest or use to others. Full paper is attached for anyone interested.

Gandy, S. (2019) Psychedelics and potential benefits in “healthy normals”: A review of the literature. Journal of Psychedelic Studies, 3(3), 280–287.

https://akademiai.com/do...df/10.1556/2054.2019.029

Thanks for sharing this Bancopuma!

It strikes me as very problematic and concerning that so much work is being done to push psychedelics through as pharmaceutical products used to treat DSM diagnosable (and billable) conditions, as though "psychedelics" are just a medical tool similar to "chemotherapy" or "antibiotics" and must be tightly controlled by the medical profession and kept away from everyone else. In a way its almost like we are witnessing the rise of a modern day priest-class, which will monopolize control of these powerful substances. And all this is to be sanctioned by the authority of the state. You will have to follow the instructions of these new priests and play by their rules (with your wallet open) in order to gain access to the medicine.

The premise behind it all is that these substances are innately so dangerous that this mediatorial hierarchy must exist because the common person is inadequate to work with this medicine on his or her own. Its like radiation therapy... You cant just let anyone have a radiation device and go around radiating themselves or others! This is the attitude toward psychedelics.

So I applaud you for doing work to expand the dialogue beyond the current "medical model" view of how psychedelics should be used. A lot of people are getting excited about the medical potential of psychedelics. But lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater, lest we find ourselves in a position where psychedelics are just as resctricted and penalized as ever, unless you're putting money in the pockets of medical professionals.

What I would like to see is common sense regulations around psychedelics that would be similar to the regulations around gun ownership in gun friendly states. As long as someone has not demonstrated (through a history of violence or mental instability) that they are unsafe to consume a psychedelic, then it should be the right of non-violent mentally-stable adults to grow and consume psychedelics. There should be sensible rules regarding conduct, similar to what we see with alcohol: no operating motor vehicles under the influence or disorderly conduct in public allowed. This would be the best solution IMO. People who wish to go through the medical route with doctors/therapists should be allowed to. And people who want freer, less mediated access should have that too.

Considering that for a long time they were completely banned and, at least in theory, unavailable to ordinary people and researchers alike, I see their legitimization in a medical context as a positive development.

If medical professionals gain the right to use them in strictly controlled settings, or a pharma company starts systhesizing psilocybin using their patented procedure and asking a lot of money for it, it's not going to affect your ability to grow mushrooms at home and commune with them in a national park.

I think one concern may be that when the Big Pharma and the medical industry see money in psychedelics, they may push for stronger enforcement of laws against their non-legitimized use.
But recognizing psychedelics as medicines will get them rescheduled to a class that has less severe legal consequences should one get busted. It will also change how they're portrayed in the mainstream media and how the public views them.

Medicalization followed by broader legalization has worked for cannabis. But I'm not sure that pattern will repeat itself with psychedelics. Cannabis has much broader appeal than psychedelics. Also cannabis medicalization seems to have unfolded in a much looser manner. People take it for pain or insomnia or to help with side effects from chemo, etc. Its kind of fluid in terms of what it can be used for and how it is applied. But with psychedelics the medicalization is very specific: psychedelic assisted therapy for PTSD or other DSM diagnoses. It remains to be seen if this will lead to broader legalization, or if it will just spawn a new industry of centers run by certified therapists. That seems to be the direction its headed in. Its sort of like if music was outlawed, but progress was being made to legalize music therapy for people with brain damage, but for any other purpose music would still be illegal. Thats not the world I want to live in. But what does give me encouragement is the growing Decriminalize Nature movement. I'm really hoping that gains momentum and takes off.

Even if psychedelics were decriminalized there is still value in having legal routes for certified therapists to administer these drugs. A lot of harm can be done to individuals with mental illness when they are "treated" by unlicensed therapists. I do not see the personal right to use a plant based substance and the development of a framework for therapeutic applications as exclusive of one another. But I do think medical use of psychedelics will be more specific initially then it is for cannabis as you say. Cannabis followed a related but different path, agreed.

For me, first it is decriminalization. No more jail time for individuals making personal decisions about plants and mushrooms.

After that, regulations on businesses/therapies is fine, sure. To me those are just busy details compared to the decades of injustice and basic personal human rights violations by most governments from around the world. People will play the $$$ game and be pains in the ass, that's fine - happens with everything, just stop sending people to jail over plants.

Would you draw the line at plants that produce more dangerous drugs opium and coca? I wouldn't I think all plants should be legal to possess. But where does one draw the line? Natural versus synthetic? LSD and cocaine are totally different drugs yet one is natural the other is synthetic. But where do you draw the line then? Extracting cocaine? Selling cocaine? That's where regulations become really important for society. Pharma companies got away with selling legal heroin for years and you can see the trouble it caused. If you don't draw the line somewhere people out of greed take it too far and get into the business of selling addiction. If one wants to say its personal choice then how can one fault the pharma companies for peddling legal heroin?

People should have such degrees of freedom, as they are autonomous intelligent agents. As humans are capable of reason, such exploitations can be combatted by disseminating accurate harm reduction information.

I think it's *much* more complicated than that.
And I don't know how you define intelligent, but to say everyone is intelligent is arguable.
And even intelligence is not everything. There are emotions, trauma, pain, etc. and all kinds of life situations.


You don't know people. Unlike on the Nexus, where there is a vetting process to become a full Nexian, there is no similar vetting process to become a person with full legal rights. There are age limits, but that's not much.

Disseminating accurate information? Look at the anti-vax movement.
I have a friend who believes Covid-19 is a hoax, there is no virus and people are dying because they're wearing masks, which is causing them to suffocate.

Who would disseminate accurate information? If it's anything associated with the establishment, then all anti-establishment people would automatically reject it and be taken over by manipulators like David Icke taking advantage of the situation and selling heroin subscriptions to them through their websites.

I interpreted mula's statement to also be capable of meaning "people should be allowed such degrees of freedom as correspond to their personal level of autonomous intelligence", which is another thorny question, leading to further thorny questions: who precisely is allowing whom to do what? and how does one (and who would be those ones that do) determine the level of autonomous intelligence in any given individual.

As Jagube highlights, there's a large number of people in modern society/culture/civilization that I'm broadly OK with being kept at a suitable distance from a wide range of psychoactive materials. (This was, in the past, achieved largely by keeping things 'on the downlow' but the internet has screwed that up somewhat...) But!! Looking back now on my previous self as a young pseudo-adult, I can quite foresee (retroactively ) withholding various psychedelics from myself as I was then. Somehow I managed to do it anyhow, although I have to admit I completely canned my life on a couple of occasions and still don't have an optimal function within society reletavi, sorry, relative (I've been working on anagrams a bit too much lately!) to my actual level of competence and ability.

And there's the rub - we're faced with the necessity of radically transforming human society because of the ecological pressures we have created. Psychedelics can play an important part in that process but using them as productivity tools for online marketing executives appears to be missing the point completely. Compound that with the question of who will get access to the type of 'life-optimization' usage being envisioned here and it all begins to look a bit suspect.

Medicalization - a qualified nope. Life boost for the wealthy - also a qualified nope. Freedom of the outlawed plants? Yes, and also with nuances and qualifications.

I understand the conundrum of controlled access, whereby a group of individuals decides who is allowed to use or provide psychedelics and at what dose, in what setting etc. And I understand the risks that might create, like risks to democracy, something one might call "consciousness dictatorship."

But let's look at what freedom we currently do have (and I understand there are subtle and less subtle differences between countries, states etc.):

Nature provides some / most / all (choose according to your belief) of the most powerful psychedelics. And nature is notoriously difficult to ban.

Generally, while psychedelic preparations are illegal, plants in their unprocessed form are uncontrolled or in a legal gray area and not actively persecuted. And if a plant is illegal, usually the seeds are not. Likewise with mushrooms.

If you're over 18, patient, determined and put in the effort to do your research, acquiring what needs to be acquired and brewing your own ayahuasca, extracting your own DMT or growing your own plants is within reach. And if you can go through these hurdles, arguably you have at least a degree of maturity, intelligence and perhaps a growth-oriented mindset (more than it takes to buy a 6-pack of beer anyway). And if you keep a low profile (e.g. don't post selfies of yourself vaping DMT on Facebook and attract those less mature, determined or called), the risk of legal trouble is fairly low.

If you don't possess those traits, are a kid or just looking to get high, your access to these things is limited as there is not much of a black market for them.

Perhaps the current situation where psychedelic preparations are banned, but those who put in some work to do the research can still benefit from them by making their own, is one of the best we can have for the time being.

So what we have is already a self-regulating, somewhat decentralized and relatively well-functioning system; still controlled by governments, but also by nature.
(In case it's not clear what I mean: it's not the government who defines how intelligent you have to be to gain access to these things, but the nature of the cooking / extraction / growing technique, as well as the information and disinformation on the internet and so on)

Also, those who facilitate psychedelic experiences for others e.g. psychotherapists in underground settings or experienced facilitators of group ayahuasca ceremonies who do their work skilfully and responsibly (which is not to say all of them do), are also less likely to attract attention from law enforcement.

Still, good people can and do get in legal trouble and lives are ruined, which is very unfortunate.

Even if you don't get in legal trouble you have to get through a lot of trouble to learn what you need to learn and take extra steps in being stealth; it would be easier to just buy your psychedelics at the convenience store around the corner along with the 6-pack of Heineken and a pack of Marlboros, but maybe that's the running cost of the self-regulating machinery that protects from psychedelics those who may not be ready for them.

Considering all this, I think decriminalization of possession for personal use (like in Portugal) would be the most harm-reducing next step.

IMHO,
Portugal got it right with broad decriminalization and funneling savings from drug police and drug legal prosecutions into education and healthcare.
Few other countries noticed then and after 20 years, Ive learned that most cannot find Portugal on a map.
hrumph
Time Magazine 'breaks' the news as a freaking question 18 years after it starts..
https://time.com/longfor...g-use-decriminalization/

here is a good short facts update on what they did and how it helped
https://drugpolicy.org/s...minalization_Feb2015.pdf