This is a well written article and I agree with him that research into psychedelics is pretty fraught with complications. On the other hand, his condescending tone is a bit uncalled for: he's using the data collected by researchers to disagree with their conclusions... the system works! Without these so-called 'activists'; there would be no data!

Sure, there is a conflation between activism and research, but that's the social context in which the research is being pursued. In an ideal world, research into legalisation and medical uses would be entirely separate... but alas! There has to be a process of disentanglement before truly rigorous, objective scientific research can be conducted.

R.D. Laing's writing on schizophrenia, for example, reads much more like activism when compared to the scientific research being conducted into the matter over the last few decades, because the context was completely different i.e. the massive upheaval in how we view and treat mental health. Social change affects scientific progress. Any attempt to deny this is foolish.

In my opinion, the core component of drugs and their effectiveness is dosage. If you take a fistful of LSD, or take a moderate dose every day for a week (guilty), you're greatly increasing the risk of something bad happening, rather than a satisfying or helpful trip. It's really that simple. With every other drug we take this for granted - the concept is hundreds of years old (Paracelsus). I reckon the bridge between science and activism lies within harm reduction. We can't truly ascertain whether a substance is 'good' or 'bad' because it's always going to depend.

Another one of my morning rambles after smoking some of DIUK's King Hassan. Thanks for posting the article!

I think the same could be said of any scientists who are researching into a new area - of course the researchers who are looking into a niche/relatively new field are going to be those with personal interest. I don't think it's at any risk of becoming an issue though. Not one psychedelic treatment is anywhere near being approved for human use as a prescribed medication (as far as I'm aware) and the majority of public and scientific opinion is that psychs should be kept illegal and are not a viable treatment option. I think we're seeing the same effects described in that article apply better to media - we as people with a 'special interest' in these products are seeing the news more often, and these news outlets are reporting on it because it's novel and exciting and 'counterculture'.
But I think yes, skepticism is to be favoured as with literally any new research or use for a compound - we do not have the evidence, we certainly do not have any longitudinal evidence and won't for many many years (decades most likely), and so we should not see these as a 'cure all'. The same can be said for any new trend/gimmick/craze. With that being said, research is promising and despite biases there is a decent amount that seems reliable. It's just something we'll have to keep any eye on for the future; it is far from being a confirmed treatment or something that will end up being rescribed to people in a few years.