Psychology Professor's Anti-Drug Lecture

[PsychonautRyan]

So, earlier this morning we had our lecture in Psychology on psychoactive drugs. And we were discussing hallucinogens, particulary LSD, the professor who is otherwise funny, intelligent and laid-back, lectures on the dangers of hallucinogens, in some areas he seemed neutral about drug use and at other times, he was biased. Anyway, he talks about how LSD is retained in spinal fluid, and how people have suffered flashbacks while at the chiropractor's office because it released from their spinal fluid into their central nervous system 8(. He also stated suspicions, but not matter-of-factly, that LSD might be correlated with chromosome damage. I know that these two theories have been long disproven, but I feel it would've been arrogant to confront him in the middle of the class.

However, I asked: "So innovative thinkers such as Alduous Huxley, Jim Morrison, Steve Jobs and George Carlin all claimed that LSD opened the doors of perception, is there any documented cause or correlation between psychedelics and creativity?", a few of my classmates were grinning or amused at my question, but the professor said that the two are highly-correlated, and the subject of mental health and schizophrenia being correlated with creativity and genius was often intertwined, but arguable, without necessarily demonstrating causation. Anyway, even though he seemed impartial, I at least want to confront him during office-hours and cite research stating otherwise. Any advice in regard to debating with him?

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

This viewpoint seems inconsistent with all of your prof's other viewpoints. He cited research and evidence that is out of date. He made a wincing attempt to acknowledge the truth of your point but quickly changed the subject. Have you considered the possibility that he feels a need to toe the party line to protect his career?

Please understand that for most salaried professionals in the US, vocally endorsing recreational drug use is career suicide. Show me any well-educated, well-paid professional who has gone public with a pro-drug spiel, and I'll show you someone who wasn't getting paid a salary, or given a professional license, by a group whose reputation was on the line for what they said. Alexander Shulgin was retired from his chemical engineering career by the time he published his books. Jim Morrisson was a professional entertainer, expected to sing about edgy topics.

Your prof would be mortified, and possibly even in the legal crosshairs, if someone quoted him condoning some sort of drug use, and then later ended up in a padded cell, jail, or grave after taking that advice to heart.

As a medical doctor, all I'll say about recreational drug use to my patients is that it carries real risk, and that this risk can be reduced, but never eliminated. (Note that this is Bluelight's position too.) I'll generally shut my big yap at that point. Going into detail and estimating the risks for the specific patient in front of me using drug X is saying way, way too much. How do I know that I know this patient's mental and physical state of health well enough to accurately gauge their risks of using drug X? How do I know what set and setting they'll be using in, and who their sources are? I certainly would not want my name attached to any person's decision to use any psychotropic drug, because I do not want my name attached to any adverse consequences they may face.

OP, If my hunch is correct, I would drop it. Pressing the issue with your prof, even in private, might be putting him in a very uncomfortable position. He wants to have intellectual integrity and teach his students the truth as he knows is. But he also wants to keep his job, in a world where drug use carries stigma.

 

[PsychonautRyan]

He doesn't seem like he would have a conflict of interest over my grade just over an academic argument considering he's laid-back, I just think I'd like to set him straight by having this argument with him.

 

[Venrak]

Well, as MDAO mentioned, he may very well agree with you, but society has not caught up with the scientific truths of drug use yet, and he may be protecting himself. I understand, we all have this little crusade against misinformation, but it would be out of place to go and argue this with him. The only good it could do is to make you feel better, since you've "set him straight",and possibly displaying a bit of your inelect to him in the process. You mentioned he is generally laid-back and you seem somewhat surprised to hear this from him, and perhaps that is because he has to say it; in which case, this debate will make him very uncomfortable.

All in all, I don't see much coming of this, and it may be a case of picking your battles.

 

[justsayknow]

^I think that the guy is a scientist and should know better. He doesn't have to have a pro drug stance, he just has to remove the incorrect information from his lecture for future students.
Some psychology lecturers I have had were pro LSD, but this was at a fairly liberal uni on the other side of the world.

I haven't seen the research on chromosome damage or on spinal fluid retention in relation to LSD but if it has been disproven it cant hurt too much to make him aware of it.

 

[PsychonautRyan]

I at least want to send some cited research links to him stating otherwise, I'd find solace in the fact that I tried to deter propagandized misinformation.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ That's a better move, I think, because it doesn't force him to reply. And if he doesn't reply in any way to your first e-mail, don't send him any more articles or bring up the subject again.

 

[23536]

I'm'a move this to psych discussion.

 

[webbykevin]

So, earlier this morning we had our lecture in Psychology on psychoactive drugs. And we were discussing hallucinogens, particulary LSD, the professor who is otherwise funny, intelligent and laid-back, lectures on the dangers of hallucinogens, in some areas he seemed neutral about drug use and at other times, he was biased. Anyway, he talks about how LSD is retained in spinal fluid, and how people have suffered flashbacks while at the chiropractor's office because it released from their spinal fluid into their central nervous system 8(. He also stated suspicions, but not matter-of-factly, that LSD might be correlated with chromosome damage. I know that these two theories have been long disproven, but I feel it would've been arrogant to confront him in the middle of the class.

However, I asked: "So innovative thinkers such as Alduous Huxley, Jim Morrison, Steve Jobs and George Carlin all claimed that LSD opened the doors of perception, is there any documented cause or correlation between psychedelics and creativity?", a few of my classmates were grinning or amused at my question, but the professor said that the two are highly-correlated, and the subject of mental health and schizophrenia being correlated with creativity and genius was often intertwined, but arguable, without necessarily demonstrating causation. Anyway, even though he seemed impartial, I at least want to confront him during office-hours and cite research stating otherwise. Any advice in regard to debating with him?

you should have stood up, interrupted him by saying in a loud clear voice - "BULLSHIT, That's all bullshit". seriously, what the fuck has happened to students these days ?

 

[OPANAMONIUM]

the same thing happened to me last semester with my psych professor, except with MDMA instead of LSD. granted MDMA does have negative health effects and all the evidence pointing towards neurotoxicity and whatnot but my professor was so obviously biased against it and clearly didn't have all of her facts straight (she was showing us pictures from the study done in the 80s of people brains who used MDMA, which actually turned out to be methamphetamine; she didn't mention that last part), she kept saying over and over how it causes people to hallucinate, and was pretty much giving our class the impression that mdma makes you act like some out of control crazy person.

however, i didn't even bother saying anything for 2 reasons:
1) i probably wouldn't have changed her opinion at all, or any of my classmates' for that matter. people who are already anti-drug have personal biases against drugs for whatever there reasons may be, and these biases have probably been formulated over their lifetime of hearing anti drug propaganda. one college student standing up and arguing his/her opposing viewpoint isn't going to do much to change all of that.
2) I could care less what my teacher or classmates opinions on drugs are. if they want to believe the bullshit thats been spoonfed to them their whole life let them.

don't get me wrong though a big part of me wanted to stand up and tell that bitch what was what

 

[psood0nym]

Heh, I took an advanced physical psychology course back in undergrad and the professor told us to use our judgment and have fun in moderation if we wanted to (his lone exception was meth). There's quite a difference in professorial candor between a small room made up of mostly graduate students along with a few undergrads studying brain damage and recovery and a lecture hall full of freshmen, half of whom will burn out before the year's end.

I second the private email approach idea. Don’t contradict a person in authority in front of others or you risk them trying to snub you out so far as they can get away with. However, if you do it in private you may gain their respect.

 

[johannes kreisler]

politely ask for sources like you would for any other topic you're interested in. of course this is an indirect attack on his/her authority. so you should be competent and confident when it comes to scientific arguments...
if he/she answers in a non-scientific manner - you win. (and people will know even if it's not explicitly vocalized)
ime way too much bullshit is tolerated in academia, especially in psychology. and if it is tolerated it is being spread.
in topics I feel I have expert knowledge (comes with time ) I personally risk a bad grade or cancellation of a course before I hold my tongue. (ime this behavior is more likely to get you an A than anything else )
if you feel really confident about the topic just make a presentation/paper. of course it has to be rock solid but if it is you always win.

 

[rangrz]

you should have stood up, interrupted him by saying in a loud clear voice - "BULLSHIT, That's all bullshit". seriously, what the fuck has happened to students these days ?

So, he should of done the same thing that I do here on BL, when I call bullshit on someone's incorrect assertions of scientific fact? Why then, do I get such a hostile response to it, particularly when I show studies that demonstrate a risk from a psychedelic substance, or which argues that spiritual and mystical experiences induced by such are simply the result of a physical/chemical action in a physical thing called a "brain" or which demonstrate that the ideas are nonsense and do not have any bearing on objective reality?

 

[MonKeYDNA]

It's not like you're paying part of his salary to tell you the scientific truth...oh wait...