Thoughts
Captain.Heroin, you make solid (and, in this context, unexpected) points; it is for such reasons I explore websites like BL; not everyone is stark raving mad about the solidarity of legalizing restricted access to schedule I drugs.
That said, I do believe this new psychotherapeutic intervention is a positive step for our humanistic culture. To me, it is representative of the changing tides and public opinion that swath our everyday lives.
The Food and Drug Administration is
not one of the more admirable subdivisions of the U.S. government IMO; the FDA is, however, penultimate when it comes to chemical influence and public opinion. Consider, for example, the exorbitant number of people who actively abstain from purchasing nutritional supplements and herbal dietary pills because the FDA can not legally endorse them.
Billions of dollars annually, lost to public influence as mediated by the FDA - and I am only restricting my focus to hocus-pocus "dietary supplements," and not clinically active drugs.
The FDA's concession that therapeutic use of MDMA is not one hundred percent bad, and may even be
good in extenuating circumstances, represents an admirable advance from the days of the Kefauver-Harris Amendment of 1962 - that is, those days when the FDA had to merely demonstrate the efficacy of a drug before bringing it to market.
The fact that MDMA can be used recreationally is an entirely different matter than its use as a therapeutic adjunct to psychotherapy, and this is not a positive thing. I think you make an extremely valid point when you mention that soldiers who return from prolonged active combat may be at higher risk for abusing such therapeutic techniques because of their acquired condition. That said, that risk runs deep for any such pharmacotherapeutic treatment whereby the chemical at hand can, potentially, be used for "fun." I do not deny the stapled medical values of Cannabis, opiates and synthetic opioids, and benzodiazepines - yet, they comprise a sizable portion of the illicit discussion occurring on these very boards. To suggest the introduction of yet another CI substance into mainstream culture as "not a good thing" based on its potential for abuse is limiting at best. It is my opinion that your logic is sound (and firmly rooted in realistic thinking) but may be too stringent for the movement of modern times. I would never support depriving a rape victim, or the victim of a brutal crime, or a war veteran suffering from PTSD from MDMA-adjunct therapy; I would, however, support the extradition of such individuals who exploit the valid use of such substances. There are always two sides to any coin (I suppose by definition, eh?
)
My eternal love goes out for all those who have witnessed their closest compatriots' heads exploding from enemy shrapnel not less than one foot from their own; I have several close friends who are permanently scarred (physically and/or mentally) as a result of such ordeals. I cannot even imagine. Their lives have been forever marred by MMT due to extensive employment of painkillers after bullet fragments have been removed from tender ligaments. Yet, my own experience with MDMA tells me that its empathogenic properties may well truly help them in ways so far beyond pain management - and I cannot muster the courage to propose SSRI's as valid proponents of such shell-shock (I realize this is not what you were implying - I may be off on an theoretical rant by this point!)
Captain.Heroin said:
Additionally, I think LSD and mushrooms would be a better place to start (seeing as they are not neurotoxic).
An EXTREMELY valid point - although, I believe so for somewhat different reasons. I concede the neurotoxicity of conventional psychedelic drugs is markedly lower than that of pseudo-psychedelic stimulant phenethylamines like MDMA. My personal argument in favor of the use of psychedelic phenethylamines/tryptamines is that they are far more psychologically revealing than MDMA, whose 'sweetness' is limited in large part to its empathogenic qualities. To truly recover from clinically diagnosed PTSD, I firmly believe one's psyche needs to be ripped open - as only 'true' psychedelics can do - and subsequently re-established from the ground up. Therefore, I think your argument for using psychedelics more favorably than psychedelic amphetamines is truly solid. The Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, Amazonians and Native Americans had tuned in (NOT a reference to Leary!) to this notion centuries, perhaps millennia ago; yet we, in our self-proclaimed 'Age of Enlightenment,' seem to struggle with such fundamental principles of using nature synergistically with our conscious experience.
It is truly a sorrow to know that the slip-shod job that the Central Intelligence Agency performed between 1954 and 1967 with LSD in human trials forever destroyed public confidence in its therapeutic characteristics. Such a shame, indeed. Remarkable, isn't it, how such a governmental move can spur such philosophical introspections?
Alas - I think the temazepam just kicked in, and so I will bring my statements (hopefully) to a gracious close.
In short, Captain.Heroin, I both agree and disagree with that which you have stated in response to this fascinating news; that which I disagree with, however, is not to be disrespected, because your very intelligent mind contrived it and your thoughts are just as deserving of philosophical vivisection as any others. Thank you for returning to support your initial assertions. Quite thought-provocative.
~ vaya