MAPS Is there a legit conspiracy against controlled substances for medicinal purposes?

PsychedelicWizard

PsychedelicWizard

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
243
I'm finding that prohibited substances are much more effective when used in a medicinal context than their legal counterparts. I've been extensively studying this, and it seems that things like MDMA really can cure post traumatic stress disorder, without the nasty side effects that anti-depressants have. I've been reading about psilocybin mushrooms and ketamine to send OCD in remission for months at a time, methamphetamine to treat ADHD with added euphoria instead of emotional numbing, LSD to actually overcome depression and provide relief to terminally ill patients, heroin being healthier than prescription painkillers, and many MANY other examples.

It seems if you have for example depression, you can take something like an SSRI and feel nothing, or smoke some weed and actually feel happy. Could it be that these massive pharmaceutical corporations have bought off politicians and scientists to exaggerate the risks of controlled substances, thus leading to criminalization, meanwhile downplaying the negative effects of their own products? If some of these "street drugs" are actually much more effective at treating, possibly even curing, mental and physical health problems, wouldn't that cause a significant decrease in the billions made annually by the corporations that produce these "legal" drugs?

It just seems too strange that I've been noticing a significant amount of people self-medicating with illegal drugs and getting better results than the legal, OTC or prescription products.

I mean, who knows, maybe some research chemicals actually permanently cure mental illnesses like schizophrenia with a certain dose over a certain period of time, and this truth is not being investigated because of this greed?

I'm not saying this is the case, I just find it really strange that so little research goes into these drugs. They are just written off as terrible evil with no redeeming factors, and even when a research grant is given, the information gained is quickly buried.

Why is this?
 
Because, you allready said it, there is in fact something... you can call it conspiracy, if you want. I will explain.

The pharmaceutical industries highest priority is to generate profits from their products, not to cure diseases. It may sound ridiculous or silly, but if you stick to the naked facts, this is the truth.
so big pharma invests all the money they have to pay the chemists to invent products that keep the dollar rolling in, rather then helping them patients. helping curing any illness is just a side effect, not important for the actuall business at all, especially when it comes to psychoactive substances/medikation for the so called mental illnesses.

for example when some new kind of disease is made up, ääh, discovered, like "depression" oder "adhd", pharma companys create a well coordinated masterplan for creating products which are expected to generate the highest profits. So they allready design the product wisely, so that customers will have to become dependent on the product for long periods of time. So pharma corps sell more of the product, they make much more money with less effort. Did you ever wonder why with all the anti-depressants patients are told to take the pills regularly at least for some weeks (!!) before the effects will kick in? I mean, what a shitty product is that? I first have to take it for weeks, spending lots of money allready, just to realize that it maybe does not help at all? Very well marketed this shit! And when you stay on that pills long enough, it is a pain in the butt to get rid of them, because of the nasty "discontinuity-effects" (withdrawal-sympthoms sounds too evil, so they chose a better name for that) like electric shocks in the head and all over the body and severe depression.

many doctors (esp. psychiatrists) are only players in the game, they get informed by the so called pharmacy referents about the new products (new happy pills) and then prescribe the shit, end of story.

So big pharma naturally is very sceptical about all these wonderfull tools which may cure diseases fast and efficient, since it is very uncertain if high profits can be generated from these substances, which often (mostly?) aren't patentable any more. These substances could even ruin the whole economic model of the pharma industry. Therefore big pharma sticks to the good old way, creating new, fresh, well designed products they can sell to all the doctors and pharmacists and to make patients dependend on them.

Thats briefly the real reason why drugs are illegal - because big pharma is against it! (behind big pharma there is big finance and then of course big militaria, they make the rules, politicians are needed only to represent the drug law that is needed to keep this mighty good business rolling)

Who would share my opinion? I know it's maybe a little oversimplified, but when looking at the big picture I can only come to this conclusion.
 
Last edited:
I have something to add! :D

"medical purpouses" is the only purpouse that is really important. one more purpouse would be to gain mental growth, expansion of consciousness and shaman skills. It's forbidden to reach out for the achievment of the2nd purpous by social institutions like the church and related authoritys. Because the impact on society could be like an atomic bomb leading to complete destruction of the ugly, rotten dominating culture we live in. therefore all the great religions of the world share the same agenda: keeping the people away from spirituality, enlightenment and extatic experience. they keep em busy with sensless regulations and rituals.
 
Last edited:
It's not entirely because of the profit motive in the pharmaceutical industry, although that's certainly part of it (because of course not every researcher, doctor, academic institution, or other affiliated entity is out for money - many if not most actually do want to help people). The other large part of the equation is that drugs have been an exceedingly convenient scapegoat for societal ills and as a proxy for eliminating foreign people and unwanted elements from society. Mexicans and black jazz musicians are using marijuana? Make it illegal, and you can publicly shame them and even jail or deport them. Inner city urban poor are using crack? Make wild media claims about an epidemic and ruin people's lives with ease. These are just two American examples, but similar things have played out all over the place. Rather than treating drug use as a public health issue, it's certainly easier and much more politically convenient to make it a crime and throw people in jail instead of helping them.
 
this is another piece in the puzzle. the illegalization of massively consumed drugs indeed serves to employ cops, keep the drug dealers on the run, generate profit for privat prison corps, generate arm sales, profit for privat security corps and so on. then it is a political agenda: the crime scene now established will be used as threatening posture for the people who tend do avoid joining in the legal educational and labour system. therefore all the brave white middle class people will rather stick to their jobs not to engage in the drug culture.
 
PsychedelicWizard said:
methamphetamine to treat ADHD with added euphoria instead of emotional numbing
Click to expand...

Meth is used for ADHD, you just don't get it because of the stigma the public has against it, its called Desoxyn. Also Amphetamine and Methamphetamine have almost the exact same effects, but Meth is more potent.
 
^Ever seen what happens to kids on those drugs at about 4PM when their school dose wears off? It is definitely not euphoria.

The trajectory I see IRL is generally like this: kid and parents and teachers all experience euphoria in the beginning.

Kid: I feel fantastic! This must be how I am meant to feel! This must be what normal is!
Parents: Look at my kid feeling so positive and good. This must be a real disorder treated by a real medication! I am so relieved!
Teacher: Wow, the kid is concentrating so hard he is chewing his pencil to a nub. His progress is amazing!

About two months later:

Kid: I hate my life. I hate myself.
Parents: My kid is suicidal and he is only 10. We trusted the "experts", now where do we turn?
Teacher: This kid has some real problems. Maybe he needs an anti-depressant added on?

There should be no line drawn between legal and illegal substances--they should all be legal. There should be regulation and even more than that there needs to be a shift away from magic bullet thinking. Medications, explorations, adventures--whatever you take any kind of drug for--make sure you are informed, have weighed the consequences and benefits and are always exploring non-drug alternatives at the same time.

While I am a huge supporter of psychedelic therapy and exploration, I refuse to deify any drug. To me that is no different than vilifying a drug. Drugs are tools and they all come with risks as well as benefits. While psychedelics are not addictive, people can and do make dependencies out of anything. I abused psychedelics more than any other drug when I was far too young to understand the risks of what I was doing. I was lucky in that I survived my own ignorance (over-use and combinations) and had the benefits of that way of seeing actually benefit my life but I had 14 year old friends that were not as lucky.
 
PsychedelicWizard said:
I'm finding that prohibited substances are much more effective when used in a medicinal context than their legal counterparts. I've been extensively studying this, and it seems that things like MDMA really can cure post traumatic stress disorder, without the nasty side effects that anti-depressants have. I've been reading about psilocybin mushrooms and ketamine to send OCD in remission for months at a time, methamphetamine to treat ADHD with added euphoria instead of emotional numbing, LSD to actually overcome depression and provide relief to terminally ill patients, heroin being healthier than prescription painkillers, and many MANY other examples.

It seems if you have for example depression, you can take something like an SSRI and feel nothing, or smoke some weed and actually feel happy. Could it be that these massive pharmaceutical corporations have bought off politicians and scientists to exaggerate the risks of controlled substances, thus leading to criminalization, meanwhile downplaying the negative effects of their own products? If some of these "street drugs" are actually much more effective at treating, possibly even curing, mental and physical health problems, wouldn't that cause a significant decrease in the billions made annually by the corporations that produce these "legal" drugs?

It just seems too strange that I've been noticing a significant amount of people self-medicating with illegal drugs and getting better results than the legal, OTC or prescription products.

I mean, who knows, maybe some research chemicals actually permanently cure mental illnesses like schizophrenia with a certain dose over a certain period of time, and this truth is not being investigated because of this greed?

I'm not saying this is the case, I just find it really strange that so little research goes into these drugs. They are just written off as terrible evil with no redeeming factors, and even when a research grant is given, the information gained is quickly buried.

Why is this?
Click to expand...

I think this needs medical back up.
It needs insurances that they will be not playing with toys just to satisfy few hippies who believe this could be good for your health.
I could argue that you´ll find at least 10 meds that is a valid option to solve one´s problem better than the chemical you are proposing.
If this would save anyone don´t be naive, it would have been on sales inside every pharmacy in the world.
Look at what happens with opiates and their use in all the world as pain medication, cancer medications, sleeping aid while on surgery, etc.
 
Conventially prescribed anti-depressants have not only been shown to be ineffective, but they have even been shown to make depression slightly worse!
 
^ yes, always depends on the individual…
and type of depression.
 
Dresden said:
Conventially prescribed anti-depressants have not only been shown to be ineffective, but they have even been shown to make depression slightly worse!
Click to expand...

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Seriously though medical science doesn't support your opinion.

I don't think there's a conspiracy against recreational drugs. In the US at least the government admits outright that they will not fund any research looking into the benefits of street drugs, but has no problem funding research looking at their harms. It can't be a conspiracy if they admit it up front right? Big pharma will only research what they can patent, so no conspiracy there either.
 
Yeah I don't think conspiracy is quite the right word. I think the less glamorous reality is more like a self-perpetuating cycle of top-level healthcare and pharmaceutical decision-making posts strongly selecting against anyone who's ever had anything to do with recreational drugs. Anyone with any real power in the healthcare system is really putting their career and professional reputation on the line advocating for expanding the medical use of something with known recreational merit. And these are high-paid jobs that take a lot of schmoozing and ladder-climbing to attain that we're talking about. Regardless of what one has used and what one believes, the temptation to lay low and support the status quo must be incredible.

This is really like asking why most cops who speak out in favor of drug reform just happen to be retired, or why most whistleblowers on sneaky government projects are ready to never work for the government again.

For each drug with recreational merit that does have a place in mainstream medicine, there is a corresponding party line about the limits of its usefulness, which to my ear seems almost crafted to discourage doctors and pharmacists from even considering that the drug might have more uses than that. For example, whenever I have hinted to colleagues about research I've heard about a possibility for ketamine having psychiatric applications, the reply is nearly word-for-word the same, with a dismissive down-inflection to their voice: "Well, I suppose it's good for procedural sedation in children, but ... mumble mumble trail off ..."
 
"Legit conspiracy"? I doubt it, as it's more parsimonous that the sum effect of stigmatization of recreational drug use places obstacles to medical use of these compounds (through various mechanisms, shaping the behavior of a varied constellation of varied institutions).

ebola
 
In America, doctors are only allowed to prescribe so many controlled substances to a certain number of patients over a certain period of time. If they overprescribe them, they face disciplinary action by the DEA, which can mean having their DEA license revoked. If that happens, then they are not allowed to prescribe any more controlled substances and will most likely lose business because of it.
 
Oxycodone is very addictive... i've seen people cry and even attempt suicide when their prescription was revoked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top