politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Ending the drug war would help psychiatrisy move forward with some excellent meds (psilocybin, MDMA). It would also let a lot of innocent people avoid the six year prison stint I did for growing my own medication.
So, I don't see it as not political. But I also don't see it as not psychiatric.
Have a friend administering psilocin/4-HO-DMT to patients for one of those psychedelic startups in Canada. Thought it was cool because the first serious psychedelic research also began in Canada in the late 40s-50s, Humphrey Osmond even coined the term "psychedelic" while experimenting with them at a mental hospital in Weyburn, Saskatchewan, in a letter addressed to Huxley. They first used them as "psychomemetics" with the understanding they mimicked the symptoms of schizophrenia, to better sympathize with the patients (this was in the days of mental institutions.) They used it for alcoholism as well apparently, Osmond said it would reveal to them how their behavior was affecting other people etc.
MDMA got submitted to the FDA recently. They’ll have to reschedule MDMA and I don’t see that happening easily even with evidence it has medical uses.
Considering cannabis is still illegal federally, I'd agree with you.
Well, do you need a psychiatrist if your life isn't completely fucked by a drug possession conviction?
Psychiatrists are the ones doing a lot of the research.
I get your point but I find the research still important for harm reduction even if I don't think these medicines should only be available with a prescription.
...yes, sometimes?
Although we desperately need better medications (that are affordable), this covers treatment. What's being pointed out here is that we're not addressing the causes. Legalization certainly helps with one cause, but there's clearly way more contributing to the rise in mental illness which is largely being ignored.
I agree with what you're saying and probably mostly agree with the article.
But the headline pitched it as an either/or thing (not psychiatry but politics!). My comment was meant to highlight the impact politics has had, and continues to have, on psychiatrists being able to use medicines that Western science has been well aware of the potential for in the treatment of mental illness for 50+ years.
There's similarities in regards to body autonomy and Dr/patient autonomy with abortion access and psychiatric medicine that many people are ignorant too because of oppressive policies on the part of the Nixon administration that continue to be the status quo.
Public policy changes to address systemic causes of mental illness are absolutely needed. But pitching it in this sort of binary as the headline does misses the mark imo.