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!
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!