Erika Dyck: Are We Living in a Psychedelic Renaissance?
Historian Erika Dyck contextualizes the deep roots of and battles over LSD, psilocybin, and other psychoactive substances.

Over the past few episodes, I've been talking with people involved with what we at Reason are calling a psychedelic renaissance, or a rebirth of interest in substances long associated with the CIA and hippies and counterculture. Today's interest in these substances is mostly motivated by a desire to help veterans and victims of sexual violence who suffer from PTSD and related conditions, including substance abuse. The psychedelic renaissance may well sound the death knell for the war on drugs, at least in its current form.
So it makes sense that today's guest is a historian who studies the man who coined the term psychedelic.
Erika Dyck is a professor at the University of Saskatchewan who studies the history of psychedelics with a special interest in the legacy of Humphry Osmond, the British-born psychiatrist who gave Aldous Huxley his first dose of mescaline, and conducted pathbreaking work using LSD to help alcoholics stop drinking. Among Osmond's best-known patients was Bill W., the co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Reason sat down with Dyck at the MAPS Psychedelic Science 2023 conference held in Denver this June, where a reported 13,000 people gathered to talk about all aspects of today's psychedelic renaissance. We talked about why drugs such as MDMA, psilocybin, and LSD are making a comeback; how tensions are rising between indigenous people and medical practitioners; and whether prohibitionists have finally lost the war on drugs.
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
Here we go with the hippie druggie shit again.
Seriously, guys, is this High Times? We get it, you're all dopers and spend your off time eating cheerios out of the box and watching sponge bob reruns on Adult Swim. Your favorite part of a Grateful Dead show was dropping a tab in the parking lot.
How many times a week do we need to hear "Wohoo psychedelics"? Where's the libertarian imperative to this?
"Koch-funded libertarians are just Democrats who want to smoke weed."
This is what girl-bullying, trader-murdering goons chanted in 1980, when Mohammedans in Iran elected Ronald Reagan president of the USA. Only the LP was a danger to Christian Nazi hatred of all things "semitic," and the LP caved to GOP pressure and removed its plank defending individual rights for women. Will Mises Caucasians seek to again make beer a felony to please prohibitionists?
Well, if psychedelics can cure drug addiction...I mean, except addiction to psychedelics...then we can at least do a comparative study of the ups and downs of the respective drugs, like we do with tobacco vs. vaping.
Moot.
The point is the constant stream of pro drug articles with very little Libertarian discussion. Really, I don't give a flying fuck if you want to treat your PTSD with shrooms, or cure your genital warts with CBD oil for that matter.
It's not the drugs. Whether drugs are good or bad for a person doesn't mean a goddamned thing from a Libertarian perspective. Arguing that drugs have benefits completely bypasses the basic principle of "What I do is none of your goddamned business".
Begging government forgiveness, one overreach at a time, by trying to convince people that "it's actually good, I swear" is not worthy of so goddamned many articles. The Libertarian stance is about loss of privacy, overreach and overenforcement, expansion of government power with the dubious claim that it is "for your own good", etc. It's true of drug prohibition, and its true of every other fundamental liberty taken away by dubious means.
The fact that I can't buy Sudafed without entering my personal information in a datbase because Diane Feinstein decided some tweakers might make meth out of it is a hell of a lot more Libertarian a topic than "Yeah, this thing I want to do for fun should be legal because, look, there's this thing it might possible help with. Please daddy government, let me try it just this once, please."
Talk about the big ideas, stop talking so much about your pet recreational goals. Point something out to a cat, half the time they'll ignore where you're pointing and just stare at your finger, I swear.
You know what cures me of my sex-addiction? Sex!
Addiction to psychedelics isn't really a thing.
Here we go with the hippie druggie shit again…Where’s the libertarian imperative to this?
I hear you with the complaint that Reason has been over saturated with these psychedelic drug articles lately, but it is a legitimate libertarian imperative that deserves special attention when it interferes with health decisions.
I’m sure you agree that the state has no right to prevent an individual from trying these treatments. Libertarianism may be the only political movement providing a solution to the government’s interference in health decisions. Showing these treatments work is a libertarian concern because it shows a more egresious (for the average non-libertarian) government transgression. That, in turn, may tempt some to look further into libertarianism.
Having said that, I do acknowledge your complaint that the overabundance and tone of these articles alienate the social conservative libertarians.
Excellent! Christian National Socialists are using "social conservative libertarian" as the new Klan hood code for breaking down doors and killing people in bed (and robbing the corpses). It is also the greenlight for Comstockist reenslavement of women, which has already re-raised the incidence of women killed by attempts to coerce childbirth which the LP's Roe v Wade decision reduced as of 1973. These superstitious murdering slavers, who wrecked the GOP, are what communists and other looters credibly point to as Fabian fascism infiltrating the Libertarian Party.
I find it kind of interesting, because it's a subject I'm interested in. Reason's always had their share of "lifestyle" kinds of articles that aren't really libertarian one way or another. I suppose there is a bit of a libertarian angle on stories like these in that they suggest that we may have been set back in some ways because of the prohibition of certain substances.
Ecstasy is no more a psychadelic than alcohol is.
First question: How many people were killed by men with guns sent to enforce psychedelic prohibition? Deaths from LSD and civilian nuclear plants are both zero. So where is the harm comparison?
Cash generating easy and fast method to work part time and earn an extra $15,000 or even more than this online. By working in my spare time I made $17990 in my previous month and I am very happy now because of this job. you can try this now by following
the details here...... https://workscoin1.pages.dev/
This interview, like translations of Hitler's Christian National Socialism speeches, is deeply unsettling to politicians who send men with guns to kill people over something that NEVER killed anyone. Like their communist pals in congress, the ones who seek to ban electricity because Sharknados, force-initiating fossils shudder at the thought of the 127 electoral votes scrambled by Gary Johnson in 2016. Violent prohibitionism of energy and psychedelics is defeating Kleptocracy cults and freeing voters from superstition.