Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: the real question is, why aren't you on mushrooms?

source
this is getting ridiculous.

i just wrote a post about new research on psychedelics and their potential application as mental health treatments, including the results of a  massive study that showed that there was no evidence of harmful effects caused by taking psychedelic drugs.

normally, i don't like to return to a topic so quickly, but i found an article published this week relating to an even larger study at johns hopkins university that comes to an even more shocking conclusion: psychedelics may help prevent you from developing certain mental disorders to begin with.

while scientists can't say definitively that it's because of psychedelic drug use, those who reported using them had significantly reduced rates of psychological distress, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. it's possible, of course, that people who choose to do psychedelics are more emotionally stable and mentally healthier anyway. use of psychedelics was concentrated among people with higher income and education [in the united states, higher education levels are usually indicative of coming from a higher income family] and since poverty is always positively correlated to depression, there is some reason to question if those who have taken psychedelics just come from a happier place.

however, the study's authors say that, even taking cultural factors into account, there is still reason to believe that taking psychedelic drugs may well improve mental health, a finding which would emphasize how different psychedelics are from the other substances with which they are currently classified. after all, lifetime use of every other type of drug has just the opposite effect: people who do other drugs have a higher risk of mental illness than people who do no drugs at all.

furthermore, while scientists acknowledge that there are certainly negative experiences or "bad trips" [heightened paranoia, anxiety, etc., as well as the worsening of existing psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia], the instances of those are rare compared to those who seem to experience benefits. [the ratio of risk to reward is, for good reason, a standard part of determining whether a drug is safe for human consumption. no drug on the market is completely safe, but figuring out how likely it is to cause various problems helps decide how controlled it needs to be.] in other words, the presumed negative effects are much less and the demonstrable positive effects much more frequent than we've been led to believe. [of course, those who take psychedelics have been saying for years that there was a positive, perspective-changing experience to be had from them, it's just that now science is proving that they were right all along.]

the more research that's done, the less tenable the arguments for keeping these drugs in the highest echelon of restricted substances* become. and the more that mental health issues start to impact the economy, the greater the possibility that even traditional opponents of relaxing drug laws will start to change their minds.

new topic next week, i swear.

* mostly. of the "big two" psychedelics, lsd and psilocybin [magic mushrooms], lsd is completely illegal almost everywhere. however, mushrooms are a more localised matter. in the czech republic and british virgin islands, simple possession is legal. in the netherlands, everything to do with psilocybin is technically illegal, but there is a loophole that allows certain establishments to sell it. in spain and brazil, it's all legal. you can buy, sell, carry, consume and cultivate magic mushrooms and no authority will stop you.  even in the united states and canada, there is a weird workaround that makes it legal to buy spores and grow kits, even though actually cultivating anything from those kits would be illegal. sadly, the trend has been toward greater restriction in the last twenty years, which is a bummer if you want to take them for fun and a huge impediment if you want to do any psilocybin research. get the full story here.

Comments

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

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…

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 …