Psychedelic drugs can unlock mysteries of brain - David Nutt

You beat me to it! I love the way they banish him but he just keeps coming back!



I thought he had recently called for decrim of all drugs but starting off with the ones with the least worst publicity?
so start of wit the ArC6ns. noone knows about them really.and they seem to provide excellent models for manic behaviour.

i'll put myself forward as a subject if he likes! pm me, right up my street.

and lsds and mushes too and.dmt. bring em on.!

expenses negotiable of.course!
I would have to totally agree with this article. Just because these drugs are illegal shouldnot mean that we should not study and experiment with them further. I've read several studies on MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) being used in therapy for multiple reasons. I beleive that if our government has access to these drugs, and we all know they do. They should all be explored and studied in depth to maximize modern medicine as we know it. They could possibly cure all sorts of brain dieseases, also maybe some similar compounds during synthesis may be used to cure cancer, who knows but I keep an open mind about it. I wish our government did the same and did research while they have the means to do so.

"I belive that there are doors, that they are afraid to go in, and they don't want us to go in there either, because we might learn something they don't know, and that makes us a little out of their control."
Although this article is about these uses solely for research with imaging scans, past research and some spotty continuing research suggests that psychadelic substances can be extremely beneficial in treating depression, anxiety, PTSD, relationship problems, etc etc etc...

If marriage counselors could prescribe MDMA in an appropriate set and setting for the husband and wife, I think that you would not see so many fucked up divorces and kids with one parent, or guys beating their wives, because it isn't just a band-aid like anti-depressants, it can generate lasting effects on your perception of the world and the way one treats those around them.

If mushrooms could be acquired with a prescription from your doctor for use no more often than 2x a year, do you really think anyone would be out taking tons of mushrooms and shitting in the streets? No.
But it might instill a lasting sense of connection and responsibility to the larger social collective, and the even larger natural order. Scientist would love to find a way to instill a lasting peaceful and happy mood in people without the frequent use of harmful drugs, well here it is. People lament the demise of the earth and her natural resources, beauty, and wildlife. Perhaps those who had experienced the connection to it all, of "ALL", people would be more hesitant to destroy something that they understand to be a part of them and essential to their life.

There is a vast amount of evidence supporting MDMA and Psylicibin and helpful in psychotherapy for PTSD and ADHD respectively, as well as many other lines of research.
The VA is now offering limited MDMA therapy for veterans to help overcome PTSD... the pilot study was overwhelmingly successful. Add this to the work done before MDMA was scheduled regarding couple's therapy- and a small body of continuing work (scheduled substances are no easier to get for studies in the U.S.) shows that it is extremely effective in letting people talk freely, and to readily and easily empathize with others. In this day and age, the world would really be a better place if everyone was a little more conscious of their neighbor, both literally and ecologically as well.
Im quite suprised at some of the negative comments, not because there negative but because of there nature, for example people saying ' he's just saying this and that and never actually following through and getting things done'

Well if you read most of the of the things he says then that is part of his actual argument, that his hands are tied due to the complicated (almost impossible) nature of our governments attitude towards using illegal drugs for research.

Keep talking David.. because nobody else is!
parttime crackhead;10710205 said:
I don't think he's really spreading knowledge to people that don't already have it, or aren't already inclined to think that way. I don't think he's changing many people's minds. To anyone that was already against drugs he'll just be written off as that guy that was sacked by the government.
I dunno. I think he's one of the few people who can eloquently speak about drugs and drug reform without being easily picked off as a 'radical' or a 'hippy' or making an embarrassing arse of himself like Russell Brand.

To that end, I think he finds an audience with the middle class who might be on the fence.
muvolution;10741083 said:
If mushrooms could be acquired with a prescription from your doctor for use no more often than 2x a year, do you really think anyone would be out taking tons of mushrooms and shitting in the streets? No.
But it might instill a lasting sense of connection and responsibility to the larger social collective, and the even larger natural order.
I'm not sure trying to convince people that they're safe or harmless is the best route to go down tho. There will always be some fucking idiot capable of damaging himself while on drugs - even psilocybin. The more important point is that people should be responsible for themselves and just because someone else jumps out of a window doesn't mean I can't take them.
knockando;10742068 said:
Good man.
Just trying to figure out what his road to damascus moment was tho - two years ago he was having a shit-fit about GBL and was practically frothing at the mouth screaming "I have tried to get this drug banned and frankly I am amazed the government hasn't got round to doing so yet".

That's what makes me a little uneasy about the guy - how can you be for making GBL illegal two years ago and now be for decrim of all drugs? What changed his mind?
Yeah, I think he was handed a lemon by the government then realised he could make lemonade by becoming the poster-child of decriminalisation.
The guys a legend my book. i been following his work for years in a purely academic sense, never even knew he was a gov advisor until he got the sack and was all over news. i'd happily back treacle by putting him up there wit shulgin. only trouble is that the two guys are inversions of each other. shulgin is a chemist who knows fuck all about pharmacology, while nutt is a pharmacologist with world renowned knowledge of the way drugs act on the brain. to be honest i've always found shulgin way to arrogant and conservative for my liking while david nutt is a true liberal / progressive in every sense of the word and a fucking shit hot scientist to boot. Probably sounds like i'm part of some David Nutt PR campaign or somethng, but what the hell. top dude in my book anyways.
Ismene;10709795 said:
Not sure about Nutts idea that taking psychedelics "mimics schizophrenia" - wasn't that idea demolished in the 50's? On a psychedelic you know you've taken a drug, when you have schizophrenia you think it's real. That's a pretty fundamental difference isn't it.

And I can't quite work out why he's changed to decriminalisation when he was such a fervent prohibitionist over GBL, he said something like "I have made a strong recomendation GBL is banned and I am very optimistic it will be within months. GBL is unquestionably as dangerous as GHB". He was an absolutely full-on, raging drug-warrior. If you'd breathed "How about we keep GBL legal mate?" he would have thundered abuse at you about the danger it posed to "the children".

Wonder when he had his road to Damascus moment? Or is he now just thinking he's burned his boats and legalisation is the only road that he can make any money and keep his name in the papers.

If we're talking about DMT, then studies have shown that a person's endogynous DMT levels spike when they have a schizophrenic episode. I will try and find links.

Other than that I don't see the connection at all, either - all other psychedelics havve a completely different effect (for me anyways) - whereas dimitri actually speaks to me in an internal voice. Other psychedelics, including marijuana, just give me flashes of pictures, and bring people into my mind over and over, memories too - when my mind is trying to make me see them from a different angle.

Ismene;10709795 said:
Not sure about Nutts idea that taking psychedelics "mimics schizophrenia" - wasn't that idea demolished in the 50's?
Yeah, I was under the same impression. I know when LSD was first given out by Hofmann to researchers one of the uses put forward by psychiatrists and psychologists was to take the drug themselves as a way to better understand their schizophrenic patients mind state so they could come up with more effective treatments and just as a way to empathise with their situation. But yeah, it didn't take long for the men in white coats to come to the conclusion that they were dealing with a very different state of of mind to that of their patients. One that didn't really mimic schizophrenia. I think someone came up with the term "unsanity" as opposed to insanity. Many of them actually saw potential benefits of using low LSD doses to help treat patients due to the introspective nature of the drug. It was quite common practice to do so for a good few years. I think even Aphex Twin's father who worked in a mental institution for some time used to be one of the blokes that would do the rounds giving out the LSD to the inmates before the psychologists would come in when the drug began to take effect. Apparently him and a nurse used to take it themselves just for fun as well lol.

If we're talking about DMT, then studies have shown that a person's endogynous DMT levels spike when they have a schizophrenic episode. I will try and find links.
There was a study carried out in the 60's that found elevated endogenous levels of 5-OH-DMT in the urine of people suffering from schizophrenia and autism.

There's also an experiment that uses a hollow white rotating mask. It's an optical illusion. Whether it's pointing forwards or backwards it always appears to be protruding forwards like a normal face. You dont "see" the indented side. That is, unless you are tripping or a schizo, in which case you can tell each side apart.

After my long love affair with MXE the glutamate hypothesis of schizophrenia makes the most sense to me. When I first signed up on here and on previous drug related sites I used to laugh at the hippys claiming that none of this world was real, maaan. I was doing a lot of psychedelics at the time then as well I couldn't get my head round how anyone could think that to be true. But one night on MXE had me feeling like my whole fucking life had been a dream, and that I was living in the matrix lol. Took me about 5 hours to snap out of it. So yeah, nmda antagonists seem to push the crazy button so much better than classical psys.
StoneHappyMonday;10743609 said:

Nice post 33. Particularly if all of your 'facts' (like Aphex's dad giving out LSD) are true.
Cheers, dude. Yeah, his words, not mine. I probably idolise him a bit too much. I've read countless interviews about him.
Ismene;10742050 said:
Professor Nutt: "I am suggesting we decriminalise all drugs"

Q320 Mr Winnick: If I may come back to Professor Nutt, you have said you are in favour, if we can just state on the record, of the decriminalisation of all drugs?

Professor Nutt: Yes.
Good is a strikingly different tone, I'll give you that. I'm still not sure that his views are entirely inconsistent though. A distinction that I failed to make in my last post is the difference between decriminalization and legalization. For example, I said that I'm all for increased availability of treatment resources and reduced penalties for drug crimes (decriminalization), but I'm not in favor of across-the-board legalization, at least for a handful of addictive and potentially dangerous drugs, GHB/GBL included.

One interesting thing I noticed...Dr. Nutt's "rational scale of drug harm" puts GHB very low on physical harm and dependence scales, which seems at odds with his fervent tone in regards to banning GBL. Otherwise, I generally agree with his notion that policy should reflect reality of potential harms, as opposed to the arbitrary penalty system currently in place.

I think his physical harm axis is a bit strange generally. Heroin worse than cocaine? Really? Cocaine can cause sudden heart attacks in vulnerable people, doesn't need to be an OD. Heroin is surely dangerous in OD but otherwise I thought not?

Alcohol for that matter too, I would have thought is more physically harmful than Heroin although Heroin is probably worse for dependence.

Presumably it incorporates risks from cuts, ODs and such like, but that makes it less than useful for evaluating harm in the absence of distortions caused by prohibition.