Prescription Entheogens

John Horgan, author of Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality, tries to rehabilitate the reputation of LSD and other entheogens over on Slate. Alas, he settles on the heinous prescription model--"Risks could be minimized by making these substances available only through licensed therapists, who can screen clients for mental instability and advise them on how to make their experiences as rewarding as possible. Some people might be prescribed entheogens for a specific disorder, such as depression or alcoholism. And just as drugs such as Prozac and Viagra are prescribed not just to heal the ill but also to enhance the lives of the healthy, so might entheogens."

It's a sad thing in the drug freedom debate that even most of those who present themselves as its defenders don't really believe in drug freedom.

Comments

[Sean]

Then again, getting schedule I drugs available by prescription is a step in the right direction. A step by step evolution of the drug laws is far more realistic than waiting for punctuated equilibrium to occur.

[Sir Real]

Does "really believ(ing) in drug feedom" apply to antibiotics as well? It would seem a case were regulation would serve the greater good vis a vis resitance- but then, it would be perverse if poison were easier to obtain medicine.

Serious responses appreciated.

Regards,
Sir

[Shifty]

Not only do I support drug freedom, I support free drugs.

[fyodor]

Sir Real,

I guess that unless you're a purist, regulation could be okay when there's at least some rational basis for it. Making LSD controlled by prescription would be consistent with other drugs that are controlled on the grounds that people may not use them in the best way otherwise. But this essentialy amounts to protecting people against harming themselves, something I'm not a real big fan of.

Antibiotics may fall into a different category since their overuse can affect others by weakening the drugs' effectiveness. Though from what I've heard, doctors aren't necessarily very circumspect about only prescribing antibiotics when they know there's a bacterial infection, anyway. Whine that you're sick, and you'll probably get your antibiotics, whether they'll do you any good or not!

In general, this issue shows us what we should already know. That drug legalizers aren't all across-the-board libertarians any more than NRA members are! Pet issues usually motivate people more than broad principles....

[Jim N]

fyodor, Not only do MDs overprescribe antibiotics, but when they are called on it they blame their patients. "People come in here demanding that we do something for them."

[Russ]

"Making LSD controlled by prescription would be consistent with other drugs that are controlled on the grounds that people may not use them in the best way otherwise. But this essentialy amounts to protecting people against harming themselves, something I'm not a real big fan of."

And making them totally illegal is pretty much the same thing as making them "usually illegal", so the point is moot.

Making them prescription softens the hardcore morality concern, which is the main impetus behind the restriction of drug freedom in the first place, but prescription introduces market protection which then places TWO more powerful lobbies (pet issues as fyordor says) against drug freedom: the drug marketers who benefit from a controlled market, and the "licensed therapists" who gain subsidies with the increased authority. This is why the step-by-step approach advocated by Sean sounds good on the surface but is just as unlikely to eventually yield the desired result of drug freedom and therefore equally unrealistic. I don't know if being PC (Horgan's angle) ultimately accomplishes much of anything for anyone except the person being PC. "I can't be a wacko because I'm PC!!" A less ham-fisted message may get your voice heard, but it doesn't make more people likely to consider the content.

(I realize that the black marketers do have some market protection by the fact that fewer people want to take the risk in the illegal trafficking, but they are not much of a lobby.)

[Sean]

Russ,

You argue that the two lobbies (drugCos and MDs) would make the eventual goal of drug freedom just as unrealisitc whether certain illegal drugs are made available by prescription or not. I have four points to make about this.

1)While drugCos would benefit from a controlled market over a free market and hesitate to move towards free, they would also benefit in a controlled market over a closed/black market. A drugCo can make the most money on a drug that is controlled (prescription) but not highly controlled (scheduled). Dropping a schedule I drug like LSD to schedule II opens the flood gates for them. They can then make money off of it (imagine the commercials), and can make more if it becomes unscheduled. They would likely lobby for this given the non-addicitve nature of LSD. Take that first step, and this powerful lobby will throw it's weight behind helping to get further (although resisting pushing all the way to freedom, you are correct).

2)The MD's are another restriction indeed, but would again be beneficial to moving things along further. Docs get money from the drugCos to push their wares, they also get repeat business from customers they make feel better. Ideal situation to make them the gatekeepers to drug use? No. Better than having them illegal, hell yeah.

3)So would legal, prescribed status of currently illegal drugs be closer to drug freedom? Of course. Stand on one side of a room and take a small step towards the other side, are you closer? Now, would a prescription status create an inescapable rut on the way to drug freedom, making it just as unlikely (or more so) than the current staus to eventually lead to freedom? Here you have a good argument I didn't really consider, but after giving it consideration I must disagree. Even slightly loosening up govt control and allowing some people to legally use currently illegal substances, would begin to change minds. The indoctrinated drug prejudice that is so pervasive in this country is one of the main impediments towards freedom. Gotta win those hearts and minds.

4) While you may disagree that the step by step process is no more likely to get to complete freedom than waiting for an all-or-nothing switch, would you agree that a having a drug available by prescription (which does nothing to do away with a black market entirely) is preferable to it only being available illegally, even if both are inferior to free access? I would definitely prefer to have the option of negotiating either a black market or a bureaucratic market, rather than have only a black market as a choice.

On a tangential note, does anyone know what the patent status on LSD-25 is? It's synthetic, so it can be patented. I believe Hoffman was working for DuPont when he stumbled upon it. Do they have the patent? Has it expired? Or was it made illegal before the patent expired, and does this suspend the patent? Just curious

[thoreau]

You know, even though I support drug legalization, it's really annoying to hear people make the case based on the right to pollute one's own body. Sure, in principle we should have that right. But if that were the only issue at stake then drug legalization would be lower on my list of priorities than protecting a druid's right to keep and bear ferrets (which was the CA Libertarian Party's platform in 2002, since our gubernatorial candidate was a self-described druid, and the lieutenant gov candidate was a ferret legalization activist).

The bigger issue, the one that makes drug legalization an urgent practical need rather than just a matter of principle, is the harm done by the war on drugs. The money spent on a program that can't work but takes us down the road toward a police state.

So let's focus on that, not the "right to pollute my own body!" argument. And any step away from our draconian drug policy and toward legalization should be welcome. Making certain (currently illegal) drugs available by prescription is a good step in that direction. Anything that undermines the black market and reduces the police involvement in drug policy is a welcome improvement. There's a big difference between a compromise that is worse than the status quo but better than what others proposed, and a compromise that is better than the status quo but not as good as what you want.

[a regular poster]

I don't know how many of you have taken LSD, but it is seriously powerful shit that makes you fucking looney while you're on it. There is a serious chance that a novice doing it without the supervision of someone with experience and understanding will do something to seriously hurt himself or herself. This isn't like the reefer madness stories we all laugh at; this is testimony from someone who has done it a handfull of times, would do it again someday, and thinks the drug should be legalized.

The current, black market system seems to have evolved a type of mentor/initiate culture based on the difficulty of finding the drug if you're not already in the scene, and comprehension among those with experience that newbies need to be taken care of on their first trip.

If LSD were available as a consumer product on a shelf, it would lose this element, which has proven to be essential for users' welfare, and to make sure they get the most out of the experience. Let's be serious here; people who don't know what they're doing would take the drug and end up with physical and psychid damage from a bad trip or bad decision. Those of you for whom this is not an academic debate know this is true. I like the idea of continuing a gatekeeper function under a legalization regime. I also think that the gatekeeper should be someone who has taken the drug already.

[Sean]

thoreau,

I will agree that the more urgent and practical of the two general arguments for drug freedom, as you pointed out and I didn't previously address, is that against the economic and personal fallout of the war on drugs. However, while the "right to pollute my own body" is low on your list of priorities, I would disagree that it isn't a worthwhile argument for drug legalization. While you may find it annoying, the fact the remains that the govt. restricting drug use has led to the drug war problems. The degree to which the fallout is a problem is in relation to the degree of zealousness with which the govt has decided to enforce its original misdirected anti-drug edicts. Furthermore, I think your statement, the "right to pollute my own body," is indicative of the degree of govt skewing of the whole argument. While pollution is obviously somewhat subjective here, I assume you find any use of exogenous psychoactive drugs to be pollution. This seems faulty. Nearly every culture of man of which there is substantial record has shown the use of psychoactive substances. Historically, this pollution is our heritage; you can wish to break from it, but recognize that this would place you in a vast minority. It is also common for a variety of other animals to pollute themselves with psychoactive substances (although they lack our ingenuity of refinement and synthesis), so we are not alone in nature in such use. If by pollution you simply mean something that is detrimental to health, it would be far more helpful to look at amount of use of drugs or any other substance we put into our bodies. Research indicates that restricted calorie diets (60-70% of normal) are able to extend lifespan substantially (admittedly, no long term study in humans has yet been done, but it has worked across the board in every animal species used, including mammals and even other primates). Given this, would you describe some one eating a 2000 calorie/day diet as polluting himself? If it is solely the mind alteration issue, what of some one who exercise and gets an endogenous endorphin rush, would this be pollution? The use of non-psychoactive drugs (e.g. antibiotics) have been instrumental in our worldwide extension of lifespan over the recent times. We now find ourselves suffering from ailments such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's at our extended ages that were rarely suffered when we didn't live as long. Use of psychoactive drugs has lessened the burden of these problems and is beginning to, especially in the case of Alzheimer's, be revealed as playing a role in reducing risk. There are indeed health problems that can arise with overuse of drugs. It is better to take a look at proper dosage and delivery system rather than simply a YES/NO question with regard to drug use. It will only allow us a clearer view of these murky waters if these things are legalized (even if restricted).

[Russ]

Sean, I think your arguments are reasonable and I would tend to agree with them but something "a regular poster" said makes me ultimately stand by my original post.

He/she said: "people who don't know what they're doing would take the drug and end up with physical and psychid damage from a bad trip or bad decision."

I might be reading more into this than was meant, but I disagree with it because it assumes that the present potency will be the standard dosage for all users. Given choices, many users of recreational substances like alcohol and tobacco choose "lite" versions even though more potent versions are just as easily available; it's probable this would happen with LSD (if it's chemically possible, I don't know). It's the non-recreational drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen where people seem to go for the "extra-strength", but then these are considered "painkillers" by a lot of people. I'd postulate that most alcoholics and even heavy smokers no longer consider their subtances as recreational and instead consider them as painkillers of some kind (especially for mental anguish). This is possibly a better starting point for a "hearts and minds" argument. If my actions directly cause harm to another, it makes no difference whether my actions were made clean or sober.

Of course drug companies would want to lobby for opening up the market a little bit. The main reason for that is profit, the slight opening of drug freedom is only an unintended consequence. There's something a little intellectually dishonest about making your goal an unintended consequence (even though that tactic is already common). It's also absurd when you implement a system that says "You have the right to pollute your body and no one else's, as long as someone else says it's OK."

[thoreau]

Sean-

Actually, I agree with you to an extent. I don't think all recreational drug use is inherently dangerous. I don't share the common sentiment that all drug users need rehab. It would be ludicrous to put a guy in a psych hospital for smoking a joint (although the "treatment, not incarceration" movement is at least more humane than the "lock 'em up!" attitude).

However, I have two problems with people who spend too much time arguing that drug use is often OK:

1) Let's not sugar-coat it: While there are plenty of recreational users whose lives aren't ruined by drug use, there are also plenty of addicts whose lives are ruined. Drug use is a risky thing that consenting adults should approach with extreme caution if they approach it at all.

2) Arguing in favor of drug use does nothing to win converts to the cause of drug legalization. The person who argues "We're taking a dangerous product and creating a very violent and profitable black market" will persuade a lot more people than the guy who says "If I want to smoke crack it's my right!".

And even if one's main concern is the right to trip on acid, that right will only be won by persuading large numbers of Americans to vote the drug warriors out of office. The fastest way to do that is by pointing out the insanity of the drug war.

[a regular poster]

Russ,

The lower dosage argument is not credible. The effects of LSD do not come on for 45 minutes to 2 hours after ingestion. An inexperienced person is likely to repeatedly dose, thinking they haven't taken enough, then have it all come on at once.

All in all, the effects that this particular drug has on people should be an important part of this discussion, but I seem to be the only one who thinks so.

[Russ]

Thanks for clearing that up. Not being a user nor a potential user, I wouldn't know the effects (which is why I qualified my statements), though I suppose I could educate myself on the effects of taking it, just like any potential user. I would think that would be a given and therefore redundant to the discussion.

If the discussion is that people are idiots and won't educate themselves, you won't get any argument from me. It's already proven that in many cases our drug control model is preventing or making it extremely difficult for some people to get the help they need. If I had a choice between allowing as many people as possible to get easy access to medication versus restricting as many people as possible from hurting themselves by taking it, my conscience would be clearer choosing the former.

Why protect the idiot and hamper the intelligent? Just because of the numbers? Just because the intelligent can navigate the hurdles?

[a regular poster]

"Why protect the idiot and hamper the intelligent?" Because you don't have to be an idiot to fuck yourself up on acid. Because "educating yourself" about acid without actually doing it is a worse-than-useless exercise, and claiming you have done so will earn you patronizing stares and sympathetic nods from acidheads everywhere. Because the presence of a guide is absolutely necessary.

And because, quite frankly, people with low intelligence, or young age, or who display a passing lapse of judgement, should not be left to suffer a bad trip, or even a good one, alone.

[Shopkeeper]

Ethnobotanical Superstore with same day shipping and unparalleled quality for exotic entheogens such as Salvia divinorum, Kratom, Amanita muscaria, an an extensive catalog of meditation supplies, books, and music.