sharing a link; "people have the right to use magic mushrooms and LSD"

[ZFC]

You're mistaken.

MAPS main goal with MDMA assisted psychotherapy involves the legal distribution of MDMA with any profits funding future research too.
https://www.maps.org/maps-media/med...onduct-research-and-sell-mdma-by-prescription

MAPS research occurs in many countries on several continents.
https://www.maps.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=105&Itemid=584

They perform studies in several countries, but they are entirely focused on the American FDA. Which is fine. After all most pharmaceutical control governmental agencies are the FDA little puppies

In order to distribute, MAPS has to get rid of the FDA scheduling (at least move it to 2) and then it will still be only medical purposes. But in order to do that you need more research, and for that distribution is a problem. EmmaSofia is quite clear about distribution for ALL LEGAL purposes. it's possible in Norway!

 

[SteamboatBillJr]

ZFC,

Yes, MAPS is working within the legal frame work of the 1971 international "Convention on Psychotropic Substances" United Nations treaty. MAPS also works within the local legal frame work of America, Israel, Switzerland, and other countries they conduct research in. This includes the FDA.

MAPS has chosen the path of first scientifically proving the safety and efficaciousy of the chemicals they use. Establishing proven protocols guiding therapy. Gaining the approval of the appropriate national organizations including the FDA and others. Most importantly, MAPS has established a sustainable system of funding the distribution of their medicines, future research, and applicable legal costs. This approach varies significantly from giving away free drugs and ignoring some of these things.

This is rational because MDMA and psilocybin both fall under schedule 1 in the international United Nation treaty. MDMA/psilocybin is schedule 1 in America and is also Schedule 1 in Norway.


https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_law.shtml
https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/psilocybin/psilocybin_law.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Substances_of_1971

 

[Kl519]

It seems that the scheduling was made with haste, before proper research could be done to place those substances in a more rational category, and to also prevent it from happening afterwards as well. Cannabis seems to be finding its way out, so hopefully others follow suit if or when studies definitively prove that its total effects and safety justifies the movement.

If anything, I would love for the stigma to disappear because many people have proven that it's very possible that they can do no harm, and actually have some benefits instead.

 

[SteamboatBillJr]

I think we have to embrace the harm psychedelics can cause. There is evidence suggesting amphetamine stimulants (including Adderall and MDMA) cause brain damage if abused frequently in high doses. We don't have strong evidence of what causes this toxicity yet with MDMA. We know what happens isn't harmful in infrequent therapeutic doses. Regardless the risk is real.

The same is true of traditional psychedelics. Previously existing physical and mental illness could be exacerbated from psychedelic use. Psychedelics could also cause undesirable life changing experiences. Every drug has risks.

I show concern if doctors dishonestly talk down the risks of their medical advice and drugs they prescribe. If you visit a doctor and they claim the medicine the prescribe is without risk you should immediately question their motives. They are either uninformed or lying.

 

[Kl519]

Of course, practically the definition of any drug or substance is that they can cause side effects, complications or hazards to people who are susceptible. Even weed, which is largely considered harmless, can cause issues as well. All those that are illegal AND legal.

But to people who are healthy and follow safety guidelines? This is just not true, except for rare exceptions which tend to be unforeseen, and a handful of substances that are outright dangerous (most of which are not really used or talked about here, and for good reason).

I understand that you are presenting the other side of the coin, and for that you are presenting a worthy cause for harm reduction, but it still doesn't take away the fact that it's very possible to use, at least, some of these substances for good while producing little to no harm.

This coming from someone who may not ever touch these again. I am still on the fence about it.