Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: but you knew this already

well it's [sort of] official! scientists have recently been coming out in favour of increased research on drugs like lsd and ketamine because of the standing evidence that they are effective in fighting mental disorders.

but chances are that if you've been following mental health mondays, this isn't news to you.

here's an article on a british study on lsd and its efficacy in fighting addiction.

and here's a piece on the man who headed that study, talking about about how lsd can potentially aid the terminally ill.

the atlantic also had a piece on how psychedelic drugs are not linked to mental problems, as people long suspected that they were.  

of course, you may think that this sounds familiar, because, of course, this is a subject that's been covered here on mental health mondays on a few different occasions:

here's a piece that talks about studies done on psychedelics, particularly lsd.

and here's a post about the potential uses about party drug ketamine.[and another.]

plus there's the ever-popular post about how crystal meth may be a panacea for adhd.

the continued popularity of these posts [among the most popular in the entire history of more like space] shows me that people are interested in the topic. some of those might just be folks who want an argument for legalizing their preferred intoxicant, but i firmly believe that there is no reason to separate intoxicants from medicinal drugs on a prima facie basis. after all, red wine is an intoxicant, but also has some significant health benefits. the fact is that all drugs have many different effects and there is no drug that should be dismissed as merely an intoxicant before its potential medicinal value has been evaluated. [oh, and in case you're trying to think of examples of drugs that have no medicinal value, here's a slightly older article on the benefits of several "party" drugs, including cocaine, which may have a beneficial effect on intestinal flora. so there.]

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …