Depressed by the War on Drugs? Magic Mushrooms May Help.
Research is promising, but drug warriors stand in the way.

Hallucinogenic drugs like psilocybin-containing magic mushrooms are closely linked in the public imagination with hippies and pleasure-seeking. While there's nothing inherently wrong with pleasure-seeking (we'll see about hippies), growing evidence suggests that, properly used, these drugs may be just as effective for healing minds as they are at blowing them. A recently published study reports that, among other uses, psilocybin is a very effective treatment for depression.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Positive Results, Minimal Side Effects
"In a randomized, placebo-controlled, 6-week trial in 104 adults, a 25-mg dose of psilocybin administered with psychological support was associated with a rapid and sustained antidepressant effect, measured as change in depressive symptom scores, compared with active placebo," according to the authors, led by Dr. Charles L. Raison of Wisconsin's Usona Institute, of "Single-Dose Psilocybin Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial," published in August in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "No serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred."
The trial, conducted at different locations between December 2019 and June 2022, included participants between ages 21 and 65 who had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder of at least 60 days' duration. Half of the participants were given a 25-mg dose of psilocybin and the other half were given niacin as a placebo, administered in identical capsules. The patients were assessed at eight days (the original end point of the study) and then at 43 days (the extended time frame).
Over the course of the study, "a single 25-mg dose of psilocybin administered with psychosocial support was associated with clinically and statistically significant reductions in depressive symptoms and improvement in measures of functional disability compared with a 100-mg dose of niacin placebo administered under an identical protocol." The researchers also found a higher rate of sustained remission from depression symptoms among those who received psilocybin, "but the difference was not statistically significant."
Adverse events potentially related to psilocybin consumption included one reported migraine, a headache, and one participant experiencing panic attack and paranoia. Nothing similar was found among the placebo group. As side effects go, that's pretty mild and comparable to those linked to commonly used antidepressant drugs. Hence the finding that the study resulted in "no serious treatment-emergent adverse events."
More Potential Benefits
By no means is this the first study to explore potential benefits from psychedelic drugs. Johns Hopkins Medicine is looking at psilocybin mushrooms for treating tobacco addiction. A University of British Columbia study of psilocybin and LSD use published in November 2021 "identified lower levels of anxiety and depression among microdosers relative to controls." "MDMA-assisted therapy is highly efficacious in individuals with severe" post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to research published in 2021 in Nature Medicine.
But while the powers-that-be have budged a little from their anti-drug mania—MDMA won designation from the Food and Drug Administration as a "breakthrough therapy" for PTSD, allowing for clinical trials—users and researchers face serious obstacles despite the drugs' promise and the right of individuals to make their own choices.
"Currently, most psychedelic compounds are illegal under federal law," notes a Journal of the American Medical Assocation editorial comment published with the psilocybin study. "They were placed on the most restrictive class of drugs, Schedule I, in the 1970s as part of the 'war on drugs,' meaning that they were considered to have high potential for abuse with no accepted medical use. However, the ever-growing global mental health crisis, coupled with the shortage of effective therapeutic strategies, has given rise to a reconsideration of the therapeutic potential of these compounds in recent years."
"The study by Raison et al provides an excellent example of the promise of this new approach using psilocybin therapy for patients with major depressive disorder," the journal editorial comment adds on the way to calling for greater study and exploration of such treatments.
But legally studying these drugs, let alone using them as a treatment for mental woes or just for fun without running some handcuff-adjacent risks, is severely hampered so long as it's subject to draconian government restrictions.
Uphill Fight for Reform
"Psilocybin is a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision," according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The DEA listing for MDMA uses the same language, as does that for LSD, and for Marijuana.
None of the DEA claims, aside from the drugs' legal status, are entirely true. Acknowledging that "psychedelic drugs show initial promise as potential treatments for mood, anxiety and substance use disorders," the FDA published new draft guidance in June for clinical trials.
California is poised to follow Colorado and Oregon in legalizing (somewhat, subject to onerous regulations) psilocybin. Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R–Texas) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Sens. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) have worked in a rare example of constructive (instead of more-common destructive) cross-aisle amity to make it slightly easier to study the medical benefits of psychedelics. They haven't had much success.
"And yet, for all this agreement, it has so far proved difficult to pass any bills related to psychedelics. This is not — according to both Crenshaw's and Ocasio-Cortez's offices — because of some organized anti-psychedelics lobbying or big money lining up in opposition," The Washington Post's Ben Terris reported in July. "The psychedelics coalition is up against an even more common impediment to change: Washington's fear of something new. Some politicians can't help but tune out when it comes to drugs that have long been considered illicit in American law and culture."
Medical researchers, patients, and their advocates in government see promise from psychedelic drugs, including psilocybin, in treating stubborn mental illnesses, and many Americans enjoy their use for the insights they offer or just the pleasure they give. But drug cops can still pretend these substances have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment" and lock people up for consuming them.
It's a depressing situation. If only there was a safe treatment that offered "clinically and statistically significant reductions in depressive symptoms" we might get a bit of relief.
If you're interested, here's a how-to guide for taking magic mushrooms.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Keep voting for 80 year old democrats, this is what you get.
1 no mean tweets
2 libritarianism is only about drugs open borders and butt sex.
3 it's not like the US is actively pushing a war, crashing the economy, destroying rights...
Only the icky rights like freedom and self defense.
They are only for drugs to create an opiate of the masses.
I get paid over 220 Dollars per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. i never thought i'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 35,000 a month doing this and she convinced me to try. it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do, check it out by Visiting Following Website
Click Here.. →→ http://Www.Easywork7.com
Are you depressed by the state of the country when dems are running things? Don't worry they will legalize drugs so you can stop caring about what they do while you loose your wealth, your rights, and you individuality!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWpNckK9ExA
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol.
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol.
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol.
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol.
C-c-c-c-co-caaaaaine!
Addict!
Forgot to switch sock names shrike.
Hmm... muting him mutes both sarc and the sock.
Presumably all those studies you cite were carried out legally. You provide no evidence that research is "severely hampered".
These drugs are being studied just like other drugs. Human trials need a long list of approvals and reviews. If they are found to be clinically useful, they'll go through clinical testing and FDA approval, like any other drug. They may come on the market in 10-20 years, like any other drug.
These drugs are cannot be patented. Who will pay the billions of dollars to get them through FDA approval?
And if we know they work now, why wait for government approval? Hell, even if someone thinks there’s a small chance it may work now, how do you justify not letting someone try under threat of imprisonment; but instead say,hang in there for 10 or 20 years and maybe someone will be able to help you then?
That’s wildly incorrect. If these drugs are used to treat particular diseases, that use can be patented. Since these drugs are otherwise sharply restricted, such a method-of-use patent would be more valuable for scheduled drugs and plant extracts than for regular drugs: for non-scheduled drugs, people can easily obtain the plants or substances legally and then just use them; for scheduled drugs, the monopoly (and hence incentive) for the manufacturer is stronger.
That’s a question that has nothing to do with “the war on drugs” or drug scheduling; it is a question about FDA approval in general.
Furthermore, “we” don’t know that these drugs work, in the sense of being a safe and effective medical treatment. That requires much more than a few initial studies like that.
I’m not “justifying” anything. I’m pointing out the errors in the article and in your argument.
I'm perfectly happy with descheduling these drugs and abolishing the FDA and leaving the handling of drugs up to free market mechanisms.
In a free market, you wouldn’t be thrown in prison for using scheduled drugs. However, most health/disability/unemployment insurers would make drug testing a condition of insurance and either jack up your premiums or drop you like a hot potato if they detect narcotics or hallucinogens. And I have no problem justifying that as a libertarian.
That’s wildly incorrect. If these drugs are used to treat particular diseases, that use can be patented.
Companies will pay for research/patent for method of use and indications on an approved drug (where the huge cost of FDA required safety testing has been complete), but no one will pay for full safety testing for initial approval for a drug because these other patents are too easily side-stepped. This is especially true of natural products.
WTF are you talking about? Drug companies pay for “full safety testing for initial approval” all the time. And what does this have to do with “the war on drugs”?
No drug company is going to ship natural magic mushroom powder, so that’s not a concern. They may ship synthetic psilocybin, or more likely, some small chemical variant of it. Given that the drug has been used recreationally for so long, safety testing should be a breeze.
None of the issues you raise have anything to do with “the war on drugs”. They are simply generic problems with the FDA and its approval processes. You and Tuccille just don't like drug prohibition for whatever reason, and so you grasp at any straw you can get your hands on.
As I was saying, I would be happy to abolish the FDA and drug prohibition and leave all of this to the free market; you know: the libertarian position. But I bet neither Tuccille nor you actually want that.
WTF are you talking about? Drug companies pay for “full safety testing for initial approval” all the time.
Not for anything they don't have an exclusive market for once approved.
You have a point about the chemical analogs of psilocybin, but I'm sure anything even remotely close has been covered by patents already that have likely expired long ago. No one is working on that.
And what does this have to do with “the war on drugs”?
Because this compound is available in it's natural form right now, but for the war on drugs.
You and Tuccille just don’t like drug prohibition for whatever reason
Yeah, it's kind of a libertarian hang up.
As I was saying, I would be happy to abolish the FDA and drug prohibition and leave all of this to the free market; you know: the libertarian position. But I bet neither Tuccille nor you actually want that.
You'd lose that bet.
Your first argument was shown to be wildly incorrect, so you seamlessly retreated to a different argument with no acknowledgement. I doubt your second argument will fare any better. "they don’t have an exclusive market" But they do, that's what a patent means.
I had the same thought as NYOB - who is "severely hampering" these studies? It turns out, nobody. Just a crap article. The scheduling/prohibition of the drug has no effect on it at all.
Your first argument was shown to be wildly incorrect
What was wildly incorrect? I said these drugs can’t be patented. This is true.
NYOB2 said the use can be patented. This is true, but of little consequence. It won’t practically happen because the compound still needs FDA approval. Once approved, anyone can make and sell the compound. No business will take the risk.
Edit to add: Since this research and indication has been published, it is no longer eligible for a use patent.
I work in drug research. We work with a compound that was discovered in the 1950’s that works very well on some forms of cancer. It cannot be patented. No one will invest. Our research focuses largely on what NYOB2 said above, finding chemical analogs that can be patented. This is possible, but a huge government impediment to a drug that works now.
who is “severely hampering” these studies? It turns out, nobody. Just a crap article. The scheduling/prohibition of the drug has no effect on it at all.
This is a remarkable statement of ignorance on the subject. This research started in the 60’s and was nearly completely shut down for 50 years.
That is complete bullshit. Method-of-use patents give the drug manufacturer exclusive rights to sell the drugs for the given indications. Furthermore, since the drugs will continue to be scheduled, nobody else can sell them; if they try, they will be guilty of a felony.
So, you are saying that you have problem getting funding for a non-scheduled drug, showing that your assertion that this has anything to do with the war on drugs is b.s.
In any case, as I pointed out above, method-of-use patents are far stronger for scheduled drugs because, unlike unscheduled drugs, there are no legal alternative sources for scheduled drugs; the drug monopoly for scheduled drugs is protected by laws whose violations amount to serious felonies.
That's because it didn't look like that these drugs were particularly useful.
So, you are saying that you have problem getting funding for a non-scheduled drug, showing that your assertion that this has anything to do with the war on drugs is b.s.
We have no problems getting funding for preclinical research or aquiring the compound, unlike with scheduled drugs. It is only development that is off limits because of the huge expense. No one will pay for it without exclusivity.
And the numerous publications and commercial drugs for medical treatments based on scheduled drugs show that there isn't any obvious problem with scheduled drugs either, while the scheduling of the drug actually provides greater incentives and protections to companies.
To the degree that there is a problem, it is a generic problem with FDA approval, not anything specific to the war on drugs.
For ordinary research, you only need to secure funding. With funding, you order or synthasize your test compound and get to work.
With schedule I compounds, you need much more. There are many more hurdles. Below is a link walking through a hypothetical example. https://harrisbricken.com/psychlawblog/how-to-study-schedule-i-controlled-substances/
As I was telling you before: that is wildly incorrect. If these drugs are used to treat particular diseases, that use can be patented. They get an exclusive market, and "the war on drugs" makes that market even more exclusive than for other drugs.
Again, that is bullshit. In order to use psilocybin as a medical treatment, you need well-characterized preparations and you need to use it as part of a treatment plan. The reason you can't do that has nothing to do with the "war on drugs"; it's a simple consequence of the fact that these drugs are not FDA approved, like tens of thousands of other promising drugs that haven't been approved yet.
Eating magic mushrooms recreationally in hopes that it cures your depression isn't medical treatment for anything. You should certainly be able to do that, but trying to link that to medical issues is grasping at straws.
Oh, you can say that again: instead of addressing issues that actually matter, you waste the energy of the "libertarian" movement on these kinds of irrational, irrelevant hangups.
No, I wouldn't. Reason writers and people like you suffer from the delusion that legalizing drugs in a free market system would give you more freedom to use drugs; in fact, the opposite is true: in a free market environment, the practical consequences of taking drugs would be far more severe than in the social welfare state we currently have.
If these drugs are used to treat particular diseases, that use can be patented
This indication has been published. It can no longer be patented.
In order to use psilocybin as a medical treatment, you need well-characterized preparations and you need to use it as part of a treatment plan.
So? Let me tell you about me. From my mid teens I suffered from a rare severe neurological pain disorder that no doctor could successfully treat. Once internet message boards sprung up, a hippie-type sufferer reported that when he used psilocybin mushrooms he would have weeks or months pain free. Other sufferers tried it and reported similar results. So I undertook a felony. I ordered spores, I grew my own mushrooms. I weighed them for a precise dose. I dosed myself. I don’t especially care for the effects, but even at barely or sub hallucinatory doses I went weeks or months pain free. I made my own drug and treatment plan. It worked, but it was a felony. My current pain free period has lasted over 10 years. So shove your FDA approved plan up your ass.
Well, then your beef is with the patent system, not with the war on drugs.
It is you who keeps muddying the waters by dragging in academic studies and FDA and drug patents and big pharma, not me.
I'm saying that these issues have nothing to do with what you're doing. You're taking some botanical supplement because you think it helps you and think it should be legal. Good for you, and I agree it should be legal. But stop dragging in all these irrelevant issues about the medical system.
Well, then your beef is with the patent system, not with the war on drugs...It is you who keeps muddying the waters by dragging in academic studies and FDA and drug patents and big pharma, not me.
I get what you're saying. The point I'm trying to make is how all these things work together with prohibition to keep effective medications from some people. If not for the drug war, these other issues would be moot.
For the vast majority of people, self-medicating with plants is not an option, even less so for drugs with such a narrow therapeutic ratio as scheduled drugs. If it's not FDA approved and prescribed by a physician, it might as well not exist. The fact that you may be able to make it work makes you a rare exception.
I mean, right now, the vast majority of people don't use cheap herbal- replacements for expensive prescription medicines either.
If scheduled drugs were legal, they would be sold to large numbers of people as supplements and many people would use them inappropriately and hurt themselves. As a libertarian, that's something I accept as the consequence of legalization. But I don't pretend that it actually makes people better off on average.
That's not entirely true. For drugs containing no controlled substances, you can have and use them for any drug purpose. It's legal as long as you're not marketing them in interstate commerce and as long as you're not violating someone else's patent. You might have to make it yourself or pay someone to make it for you, but making it isn't illegal if it's uncontrolled. That's the difference with controls (state or federal).
The article in question could be on the market for some other drug use, or it could be something else entirely.
Yep. Glad that you noted the state concern - Some states have made specific drugs that are not Federally controlled (e.g. carisoprodol, or gabapentin) into controlled substances. And there are some states (e.g. Virginia) who have classified all prescription products (any product bearing the ‘Rx only’ indication) as controlled substances (schedule VI.)
“That’s wildly incorrect. If these drugs are used to treat particular diseases, that use can be patented.”
Not exactly.
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/frequently-asked-questions-patents-and-exclusivity#What_is_the_difference_between_patents_a
What can also happen is that, while the active drug may no longer be eligible for patent a drug product is developed - using a patented process or drug delivery modality - e.g. the GITS osmotic drug delivery "tablet" that then protects the product from direct generic competition.
The same people who paid billions getting cannabis through FDA approval.
So no one then?
So lots of companies. See above for half a dozen cannabis-based, approved drugs. That's in addition to all the opium-based, approved drugs.
>>we'll see about hippies
I shower twice a day, I just love everyone and see phish a bunch so what?
>>may be just as effective for healing minds as they are at blowing them
world peace would break out. everyone small dosing in chocolate bars would save the planet.
world peace would break out.
That's likely true.
Obsessive compulsive? Puritan?
don't like to goto bed unclean. OC?
Mushrooms are easy and fun to grow, too.
I can definitely see the psychiatric benefits of MDMA as long as it’s very occasional and keep you’re prepared for the after effects of the serotonin dump you’ll be feeling all week.
But psychedelics are just too unpredictable, weird and dissociative to me. Outside of shocking someone’s mind out of some specific behavior with a guided trip or something, I’m not sure how that’d work.
As far as treating PTSD or trying to reconnect with someone emotionally, ecstasy seems better designed for that.
Outside of shocking someone’s mind out of some specific behavior with a guided trip or something, I’m not sure how that’d work.
It's quite likely that is how it works. It is possible though, that since SSRI antidepressants, psilocybin and LSD all work on the serotonergic system, there's something more chemical-based about the anti-depressant effect.
Makes sense. If they can make it work, great. My personal experience was you never quite knew what you were getting with psychedelics. Seems like it it’d be a hard thing to get consistent results from.
Unless you were extremely knowledgeable, and made the batch yourself, then you indeed did not know what you were getting.
And much the same applies when consuming actual mushrooms. Even if your taxonomy is perfect you really still do not know exactly what you are getting in terms of total psychoactive compounds present and in what quantities.
Saying mushrooms can treat mental illness is not that different than saying a Chinese take out menu is a healthy meal.
To your point, even if everything were standardized I don’t think you’d get remotely the same results with different people. Even the same results with the same people. I’m just not sure psychedelics work that way.
As far as treating PTSD or trying to reconnect with someone emotionally, ecstasy seems better designed for that.
Psilocybin has shown some very positive effects on that front.
Eight days as an endpoint for a treatment of depression is not even a joke. Forty five days is more like a joke.
Beyond the utter weakness of the "science" is the cold hard reality that medicine is not a path to, nor substitute for liberty.
True, when I saw there was no statistically significant difference at 43 days, I thought, it didn't work, or at least it hasn't been proven to work.
They get a (very minute) brownie point for using a measured dose of a known substance (ie. science!)
(Never mind that most of the people who will champion this information will extrapolate it to use of actual mushrooms containing varied psychoactive compounds in wholly unstandardized amounts.)
Tempered by a giant asterisk for the grossly subjective, wholly unstandardized “administered with psychological support.” An adjunctive treatment modality that demands a sample size at least an order of magnitude greater.