http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/m...-patients-face-death.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all It's amazing the blindness and pig-headedness of the establishment (how's that for a decades back flashback). These substances (medicines) can be used to treat PTSD, anguish at the end of life, and much more - instead, they are repressed and their users persecuted. Crazy man.
I completely understand your anger and frustration. Thankfully there are people like Grob and Doblin trying to make inroads and progress. As was mentioned in the article, they do have to compile enough statistical evidence to the point that it just can't be ignored or explained away. That is what has/is happening with cannabis as a medical treatment. Let's not fuck that one up by mis-use and abuse of the medical marijuana laws. Public service announcement: IF YOU DO NOT TRULY NEED MEDICAL CANNABIS DON'T ABUSE THE PROGRAM AND PUT IT IN JEOPARDY Same goes for psychedelics. Sad to say, but websites such as this, while great for us to meet and discuss and share, also are a detriment in some ways to the furtherance of studies such as those in the linked article. Not saying there shouldn't be sites like this, I just wish sometimes people would temper their posts so they don't just appear to be "drugged out losers". Sadly in order to change the current drug laws we have to work within the system that is already established in order to bring about lasting change. Slowly the paradigm shift is happening. Let's all just do our part to help bring it about and not help fuck it up.
interesting that Grof also used DPT to treat fear of death in cancer patients. i contemplated my own eminent death this weekend while coming down from LSD + 4-aco-dmt (very structurally close to psilocybin that was used in some of the studies in the link) not that i'm close to dying (that i know of), but for whatever reason the thought crossed my mind. i was able to see it as a beautiful thing, even though it was still scary. i imagined that i still have a long time to go. that i will have child(ren) and grandchild(ren) if i'm lucky. i imagined myself leaving this world, satisfied that i had passed on my DNA, and beginning a patient waiting period until they joined me in whatever lies beyond. it was a unique experience for me.
Ya know, valid point and all NG. However while I strongly agree that there are real medical benefits to MJ, the way I see the current medical MJ scene around here is that the vast majority of people with cards are using the system just to 'legally' have their weed. In a way I don't blame them. It may or may not come to pass that the medical MJ movement will pave the way to ending prohibition, the simple fact as I see it is that MJ prohibition is just as much contrived bs as 19 yo stoners with cards for "insomnia" or "lower back pain". The med MJ argument is legit, but it would be just as legit to be arguing for the lifting of prohibition period. Just due to the already massive amount of documentation that discredits each and every argument to keep prohibition in effect. Absolutely. I'd much rather be an example for why psychedelics should be legal, than be more ammo for keeping them illegal. Every display of reckless behavior gives "them" reasons to say "see"? THAT's why (name your psych) is illegal.
I can see it both ways. I guess I understand the researchers' desire to keep it scientific and limited in availability. However, between now and when/whatever chance there is for legalizing these medicines there are and will be countless trips unfolding and more than a few spliffs smoked. It was goofy that one of the researchers (Halpern) said it's goofy for people to benefit from familiar things, like photos of loved ones, a favorite cup, whatever. That kind of thing comes from an unhip person who controls other people's psych use. I like it that these things are being done. And I personally like the research being done by people like GB, Writer, that old fool Smith , and so on. I'm grateful to be able to do a little research myself. Who do you think you'll join?
You know what's the big problem with "news" like this? The sprinkling of loaded terms. The title includes "street drugs". They wouldn't be street if they weren't FUCKING SCHEDULE 1 !!! And, quotes like this Free to offer illicit drugs??? Um, how about rescheduling them so they're not "illicit" ? This is nothing more than filler material for Fox, editorialized in such a way as to be blown off as "fringe" research by the kool-aid drinkers.
This morning in Bible study we were studying John 9, an account of Jesus healing a blind man and subsequent events. The Pharisees were pissed because he did it on the Sabbath. They questioned the man … “Then they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” The man replied, “He is a prophet.” (v.17). The questioning went on and finally the Pharisees had enough and they kicked the guy out of the temple. I’m sitting there thinking how this applies to my life, and so I told the men in Bible study that I’m associated with a group in California (blaming it on them California peeps like GB and Shermin) that’s studying MDMA and magic mushrooms to treat PTSD and terminal anguish. I told them MDMA can heal PTSD vs. current therapies, which really focus primarily on symptoms. Similarly to 2000 years ago, the Pharisees who are alive and well and running the show here and now refuse to allow effective and safe medicine because it’s against the law – laws as nonsensical as no healing on the Sabbath. I think most of the men understood what I was saying – could see the parallels. Nobody pressed me for personal related details. Voyage is right. Not many doctors are likely to give illicit drugs to very many patients!
The bulk of the article was actually good and not "anti-drug". I suspect that some editor added and revised some of the wording, because some things, like the excerpts you mentioned, don't "flow" with the rest of the writing. So I'm thinking someone else made/forced wording changes. This final statement; "Stigmatizing potentially miraculous substances which we then relegate to the exclusive domain of drug pushers and addicts makes precisely zero sense. Let’s open up our minds to the possibilities that many perilous drugs also hold much promise." Wins him some respect in my book at least, especially considering he's a FOX employee. (it is also apparent that the author of the article most likely has never experimented/experienced with any of the substances mentioned, otherwise his wording most likely word be different, and he wouldn't work for FOX)
Quality post ThisMoment, the stories reported by the individuals facing their mortality and their responses are moving. These statistics are amazing... I enjoyed everything the article touched on from the anecdotal stories, to mentioning of the methods of the study, to the hypothesis of why psychedelics are such efficient medicines. But... I think the author of the article interviewed the wrong people if they are prompting this question...Although Grob's response about controlling the setting and priming the patients for the experience is a good response. I found this paragraph interesting. It's so early on in reintroducing psychedelics into legitimate psychotherapeutic use that I think everyone is pulling for everyone at this point who is invested in psychedelic therapy. But assuming things progress and larger samples sizes and more studies get funded, I sort of sense a bit of politics looming on the horizon for how psychedelics should be utilized in medicine in the paragraph.
Fair enough, credit where credit is due. That is indeed valid, I suppose I tend to let keywords jump out at me. As one that doesn't always choose the best words I shouldn't be hypercritical. But I'm also one to analyze articles like that for manipulative words and hidden agendas. I suspect though exactly what you mentioned, an editor "cleaning up" so as to make it palatable for a Fox audience.
Nothing wrong with being an astute and critical reader, wish more people were able to "read between the lines". Very often we will gloss over something without noticing that one or two words can completely change the meaning of a statement.
Absolutely. Obviously you pay attention to how words are used in news. I'm not one to think there is a grand hidden agenda or conspiracy between all the news outlets. But nearly all of them do have an angle. It usually amounts to ad revenue. That's what editors do. There are very few that let writers submit their work and leave it untouched. That wasn't subconscious at all. It was completely a cultivated response to "mainstream" writing.
Hahaha, that reminds of a coworker years ago who would always get the two main newspapers where I live, The LA Times & The Orange County Register, and read them both almost simultaneously. I asked him what that was about and he showed me how the same story would be so differently presented in each paper, as they were/are almost polar opposites politically. He told me the truth lies somewhere between the two. So yeah, if you can't learn to discern what the motivations and agenda's of the author are from their writing, your setting yourself up to be taken advantage of or manipulated in some fashion or another.
Sounds like a bright cat. That's been my take for years now. Take one extreme and the other, then look somewhere in the middle. It can be very hard to discern the difference between a writers angle and editorial "liberties", I don't even bother with that anymore other than to look at the larger picture I get from a particular source over time. Moreso, I just look for those sneaky words. One of my favorite from the last decade or so is "insurgent".
Terminal conditions and final days are, in fact, but one of the settings in which chemicals considered “street” drugs may be Godsends. Recent data also shows that low doses of the street drug Special K (ketamine), when slowly infused via IV, can instantly crush major depression—possibly for extended periods—in many patients. And opiates like oxycodone, while obviously dangerous given their addictive potential, are also extremely useful for those patients who are reliable and who suffer with unwieldy anxiety that cannot be addressed, seemingly, in any other way. Looks pretty Pro-drug is every way, to me Especially considering it's fox. I mean, every paragraph read like that to me, although I just skimmed it.
