We had a case of a woman insufflating like 50mg of pure LSD, thinking it was cocaine, and her health ended up not just intact but in fact improved.
Could you elaborate on this, her health improved? How so?
I remember reading some time ago now about something similar happening I thought, although in that case the person did actually die, I can't remember if other substances were involved although obviously they could have been. I guess they probably were, realistically. Although it doesn't seem totally unbelievable to me either that LSD could be just very slightly more dangerous in accidental-ingestion sky high doses than some other classical psychedelics, being that it is just more stimulating than some, if only marginally. Maybe that's a wrong perception, I dunno.
Anyway sad to hear this both for the fact that someone died and the fact that every drug related death is going to be used as ammunition for prohibitionists regardless of the reality of the situation. On the other hand MAPS have a very large responsibility because of this, which they are, obviously, plainly aware of, on top of their duty of care that they obviously have by default, and it sounds very much like they did not meet this duty.
I'm sure nobody involved wanted anyone to die, but man... I was almost just gonna leave it there but I had to just go back and check the article again. MAPS' response to this is immensely frustrating and IMO WORSE than the actual negligence. Again, I want to believe there was genuinely no malicious intent here or even deliberate carelessness, sometimes people do die unexpectedly in circumstances that, retrospectively, could have been avoided, and should be avoided from that point forward. But MAPS were found "partially guilty". That's fair. They ARE partially responsible. Someone died on their watch, there is just no way around that fact - no matter what good intentions they might have had to avoid that kind of thing from happening. The correct response would be to accept responsibility, face whatever punishment was dealt, and publicly implement changes so that everyone knows that they learned from this and accept that it should not have happened -
and so that everyone can see that an organisation seemingly involved with something that many people are still quite wary of, is acting with integrity.
INSTEAD, they
TRIED TO BLAME THE WOMAN WHO DIED, are going to challenge the verdict, thus drawing out the suffering for her surviving family, AND, for the most part, as far as I can tell, do not seem to have really accepted responsibility for what happened, but are just trying to shift blame onto whatever 3rd party organisations they were working with.
Frankly, it doesn't matter if these organisations were more responsible than MAPS itself, MAPS is still the most visible face of the movement for legitimising psychedelic drugs involved, and thus how they're perceived to respond to this event has far wider implications in the near and medium term future than the actual reality of how blame should be divided up. Someone died on their watch, they are
at least partly responsible, and just a little more public remorse would not go amiss. The way they are acting is not a good look, to put it mildly, and undermines their own credibility, and, aside from being honestly just kinda callous and uncaring is just mind-numbingly short-sighted and IMHO just really kinda fucked up and unethical actually.
I get that yeah, the fine is a lot of money, I don't actually know much or anything about how MAPS' finances are looking, maybe there are real practical realities about how they can continue operating which are known to those involved in the trial and this is how they can justify acting in such a fucking shady way, but still... that just doesn't excuse it, IMO, even if it meant the demise of MAPS it would be because they let someone die, ultimately. Not because they didn't fight a bereaved family hard enough in court.
www.lucid.news
