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?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

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 …

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 …