Let’s say an abuse-ridden childhood has left you with PTSD that sparks panic whenever you hear shouts, even on TV. Or let’s say a bad accident has saddled you with crippling anxiety and chronic pain. Now let’s say that you could ease — or even cure — these woes with prescription psiloscybin. Prescription ecstasy. Prescription LSD.
If a growing phalanx of scientists get their way, those prescriptions could be yours within 10 years. Research into the medical benefits of psychedelic drugs is booming. An April conference on the subject at Great Britain’s University of Kent featured lectures on such topics as “Ketamine Psychotherapy” and “Ayahuasca in the Contemporary World.”
Let’s say an abuse-ridden childhood has left you with PTSD that sparks panic whenever you hear shouts, even on TV. Or let’s say a bad accident has saddled you with crippling anxiety and chronic pain.
I thought they were describing the parents there for a minute and had to reread it . . .
I recently had my first experience with psiloscybin. I’ve never ever done a hallucinogenic drug before. However I am quite certain that it cured me of parasites and forced them out of my body. There is huge medicinal value in mushrooms and magic mushrooms. :-/ pz
#3, well, “need” is all a measure of degrees, isn’t it?
Oh, WOW, man! That would be, like, KILLER!
Man.
#4 – usually it’s a measure of percentages. I don’t mind paying for 0% of your health care. But I object to paying a larger percent.
chuck–all too often you pay for other people’s need for drugs by either the cheapest most humane most distributed method of treating it as a health issue under socialized health care OR you pay for the same need by higher crime rates including burglary, murder, extortion, government corruption and all the “covered” medical health care all that creates.
Intelligent people choose one over the other.
But with many people often repeating that drugs are evil, or I don’t want to pay for it, how can I go against this group think and do whats rational?
#7 I’ll take the free (but regulated) market ahead of central government planning every time.
Intelligent people should be allowed to make a choice.
chuck–silly child. Once you admit to regulation, there is no more free. You just dishonestly hold the one value while ignoring the direct application of reality.
Liebertards do that.
All the time.
Silly.
Given that most of today’s brains have been turned to mush by tv, as well as re-programmed with roughly 20-25yrs+ of fear porn, -with the last 10yrs or so having the fear porn dial set to: *omgwtfbbq!! there might be a terrorist under your bed* mode..
I’m not too sure i’d be wanting the current crowd being given lsd in any environment. (although it would most amusing to watch, nonetheless.)
The study infers that an ecstasy/lsd cocktail would be indicated, since it indicates ecstasy removes the symbolic fear factor links in the brain. (i mean, it does make you a fun loving, uninhibited social butterfly for a spell)
-that could fun, and useful perhaps, on paper anyway.
Back in the 70’s we had very little to fear, except perhaps, the Big Hair people.
-tripping was always fun and quite insightful, except for those who came from very strict religious families. those kids only tried it once. -and we had to babysit them for the whole trip. -lots of paranoia in them.
(in hindsight, since fear is the primary control mechanism of organized religion, i guess this should have been an obvious outcome)
-however, i’d die laughing if it turns out in 10yrs that the prime motivator of PTSD and depression at that time is a carnal fear of CO2, global warming and “carbon footprints in the night”
(mission accomplished?)
With our luck, the psychedelics if legalized for medicinal use, will be speedy GMO garbage designed to create lousy pictures and innate love for all things uncle sam.
-maybe now might be a good time to create the “100% Organic LSD” craze.. (?)
-s
Soma coming to TRANQUILIZE THE PROLES !!! (Merging “Brave New World” and “1984”)
Isn’t that what LSD was originally invented for? MDMA (Ecstasy) is also very useful for treating similar problems.
As for paying for it – I’d rather spend $5 on a E than years of $200/hour therapy.
And I’d rather pay $20 for your medicinal marijuana joint to help the nausea from your chemo than pay the $20K for the chemo drugs themselves because you smoked tobacco.
#9 – wow. so my choices are either:
1. Total freedom – where I can buy and sell slaves, hire assassins, pay for my own health-care.
or
2. Trust the government to do everything for me.
Not much of a choice. I choose #1. Freedom is still better than self-imposed slavery.
chuck–well done. You spotted the fallacy. Now for you to “really plumb” where the reasonable balance is. Hint: its closer to enslavement by the government than it is to the anarachy to which you are emotionally drawn.
Lets demonstrate:
What current regulations or even proposed ones do you think violate your freedom interest that are not justified by living in a democracy that has decided otherwise?
Let’s take “drugs” off the table just to refresh our thinking.
Millions are stoned on Prozak et al but somehow there’s a debate about this?
#14 – well, let’s start with any law or regulation that is clearly unconstitutional – in the sense that it goes far beyond what the federal government is permitted to do, but we’ve gone along with it anyway because it seemed like the right thing to do.
ie. welfare, social security, education
BTW, if a state, or even a city wants to have its own welfare or pension plan, and allow the public (within it’s jurisdiction) to join in, I have no problem with this. It’s just the feds I have a problem with. The feds can handle defense and foreign affairs, everything else should be left to the states (or the people).
And if we decide that we want the feds to do something beyond it’s constitutional limits, we can amend the constitution. It’s been done before.
Hey chuck–another excellent response. Not jumping right into the stupid. More subtle.
But tell me how you decide what the constitutional limitations to legislating the general welfare is? YOU? Larger special interest groups?
– OR – the Supreme Court?
– OR – Congress?
While we all have our list(s) as to what/where/how/when the Feds overstep their proper constitutional limits, how to best resolve 320 Million different opinions?
How would you do that chuck?
#3 chuck – Wasn’t the Canadian government growing marijuana in a mine shaft a few years ago?
I thought LSD was developed as a treatment for headaches.
Recently, a drug related to LSD – far enough away so that it doesn’t cause hallucinations but close enough so that is banned – was showing good results as a treatment for cluster headaches, a very painful condition.
The US needs to reexamine many drugs in light of treatments for chronic illness.
# 11 JimD said, “Soma … ‘Brave New World’ ” Not that there’s anything wrong with your point but Soma actually does exist. It’s a muscle relaxant. Soma is the brand name, I think the drug is carisoprodol. I always thought it was odd they would use the name of a drug with an evil literary reputation.
On the other hand, I keep thinking about O’Bama’s suggestion that, instead of curative medical treatment, some people might just have to take a pill.
LSD is amazingly cheap and easy to synthesize. And, as long as the politicians keep putting out tons of donkey and elephant shit, there’ll be plenty of fertilizer for a mushroom farm.
Can you imagine huge hospices where old people who need pacemakers or hips or younger people with leukemia or secretaries with carpal tunnel syndrome are kept high and happy day and night?
Come visit me on Thursdays.
#17, well democracy has been working, for the most part. So if you want socialized health-care, just get as many of your fellow citizens to vote for their elected representative and see if that works. But don’t be too surprised if some people (like me) disagree. And don’t claim that everything you want the government to do is some kind of divine right granted by Chthulu himself. And if it turns out that everyone wants free stuff, then you’ll have to vote for higher taxes for someone to pay for it. That’s the tricky part.
#18 yes the Canadian gov’t did try growing marijuana in a mine shaft. Like most government plans, they figured out the only way to lose money on the most profitable cash crop in the world.
chuck–as with the legalized/paid for drug policy==do you not recognize “any” positive feedback for your own life and your enjoyment therefrom. Does everything begin and end with whether or not money is taken from you without regard to what you get back?
THE WHOLE POINT to socialized medicine is that the outcomes are better at half the cost.
If money is your over riding concern, why don’t you want to save money?
If freedom is your over riding concern, why don’t you want to be disease free?
Really–consult the “Wisdom of Crowds.” YOU are a minority for very good reason.
#23 – ok, well if I’m in the minority, then it shouldn’t be a problem then. Just vote in your people, and vote to pay for it with my taxes. When I run out of money, we’ll see what happens next.
Oh chucky–its not about a majority oppressing you, enslaving you, stealing your money. Its about “The Wisdom of Crowds” wherein in turns out across a large range of issues “the crowd” gets a better answer than any individual. You know–many people knowing more than any individual.
The external world actually is about more than what you may individually think. About all sorts of things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
#24 — Yes, I’ve heard about the wisdom of the crowds. Have you heard of the fallacy of the commons? I’m sure you have.
Also, can you show me the part of the constitution where it says I have to pay for your health care?
chuck–you are a slippery one. Not given to the easy mistakes. Not much for answering direct questions either.
Let’s parse:
Yes, I’ve heard about the wisdom of the crowds. /// And you depart from this wisdom why?
Have you heard of the fallacy of the commons? I’m sure you have. /// Yes, but issues like drug legalization/use or universal healthcare are not well modeled by the metaphor of the commons. It stops short in the trail of causation. If I need drugs and rob you for the money to get them, thats not at all like going to the commons in a zero sum game taking what might otherwise be yours. Abstract formulations/metaphors are not equally applied to any situation. Takes judgment.
Also, can you show me the part of the constitution where it says I have to pay for your health care? /// As stated above: the general welfare clause as legislated by Congress and approved by the Supreme Court. Its not a direct payment, but a general assessment. Silly to frame the issue so personally to yourself. It reveals so much.
Please answer the following hypothetical for the hypothetical it is: would you be against your tax dollars going for universal healthcare if it resulted in your own healthcare needs being provided at half the cost now and secured into the future?
#21 chuck – “… they figured out the only way to lose money …”
Was the Canadian government the only legal seller of marijuana or were independent marijuana dispensaries legal?
#26 – in response to your hypothetical question:
I would only consider such an option if I was actually given a choice.
Being told I must purchase health insurance or otherwise pay a penalty is not a choice.
chuck–that wasn’t the hypothetical. Can you answer it?
#30 – ok, i re-read the hypothetical and i’ll try to answer (instead of answering something else):
Am I in favor of using the tax I pay (all forms, income, fees, etc) to pay for universal health care (including my own) if I can get the same health care I have now for half the cost and into the future?
Well, if I believed the 2nd part (getting what I want for half the cost) was actually possible, then I’d say “yes”.
But I don’t believe it’s possible. Universal health care is not insurance – it has to cover everybody (with existing conditions, etc) and everything (smokers who won’t quit, get cancer and want treatment and still won’t quit).
Insurance only works when the insurance company (who is betting that you won’t get sick) can reject unhealthy people. Then I buy insurance (betting that I will get sick). It’s like any racket — if the casino must take all bets from everyone and offer the same odds, then someone will always win and the house always loses.
So I’d rather buy health insurance from a company that doesn’t cover smokers, IV drug users, etc.
#31,
You are still paying for all the smokers, IV drug users if you go with a private insurance company. The doctors and hospitals charge your insurance company more to cover the uninsured they have to care for (not cheap preventative care either). They only thing you are doing is paying even more because your insurance company has a smaller pool of insured which means less spread out risk and less bargaining power when negotiating prices.
Every other national system is cheaper per person and has better coverage so you don’t have to take my word for it, look it up! You are paying more than you have to because the private businesses involved in healthcare have more sway in the government than the people do.
Single payer was polling at 60% support before they started watering it down and making it not the people’s choice but the choice of the few wealthy.
chuck–if you continue to honestly engage these issues, you may find you “actually” think/want just the reverse of what you argue for/vote for/maintain a first impression about.
This hypo should give you lots to think about.
Same as with most other Republican voters–they just aren’t as smart/honest as you have shown yourself to be.
Think it thru. Separate facts from spin.
IOW–what MAXX said.