What do proponents say about the legalization of psychedelics? What about those against legalization?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The last few years have seen a surge of interest in psychedelics as treatments for intractable mental health conditions. However, some still wonder if psychedelics are as miraculous as their proponents say or if they may pose unacceptable risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Read on for an overview of the current pros and cons of the legalization of psychedelics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The last few years have seen a surge of interest in the legalization of psychedelics, particularly as their value in treating intractable mental health conditions becomes clearer. Psychedelics have even come to Netflix<\/em><\/a> <\/em>and Wall Street<\/a>. As our enthusiasm for psychedelics blossoms, they\u2019re being proposed as cures for anything from anxiety and depression<\/a> to food allergies and periodontal disease<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because of these potential benefits, there are increasing pushes for legalization around the world. However, legislators are currently cautious. Is this caution just outdated thinking from the U.S. War on Drugs, or are legislators right to take things slow?<\/p>\n\n\n\n People arguing for legalizing psychedelics cite three reasons: 1) the increasing evidence that psychedelics can relieve difficult mental health conditions; 2) the low levels of documented risks; and 3) the more rigorous monitoring and quality assurance that legalization would make possible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The main impetus for the legalization of psychedelics is their potential for significant therapeutic benefits. Harnessing psychedelics may revolutionize psychiatry, a field that\u2019s been floundering for decades. Early evidence suggests that psychedelics (in conjunction with therapy) can work to heal mental illnesses that the Western medical system struggles to deal with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some researchers maintain that psychedelics might cure (and not just reduce the symptoms of) conditions that seem disparate but have a common link, possibly in unprocessed trauma<\/a>, stuck mental patterns<\/a>, or deep-seated disconnection<\/a>. Because of this broad-spectrum action, psychologist Alex Belser calls psychedelics \u201cmedicine in search of a condition<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clinical trials have already shown that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Current trials include the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Importantly, these trials are showing that very few doses are needed to achieve the therapeutic effect: Long-lasting results are often seen after only one or two treatment sessions. Ethnobotanist Terrence McKenna once commented: \u201cThe more successful it is, the less often you have to do it<\/a>,\u201d going on to note that even people who tell him that DMT is their \u201cfavorite drug\u201d frequently report not having had any since the 1960s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most psychedelics appear to pose minimal physical risks<\/a>\u2014especially compared with other substances that are currently legal, such as tobacco and alcohol. For most of these substances (with the exception of ketamine), there\u2019s little to no evidence of organ toxicity, and lethal overdoses are vanishingly rare. Addiction (except in the cases of MDMA and ketamine) is also rare, though tolerance does develop with repeated use. Despite fears to the contrary, psychedelics are also not linked to psychosis in the general population<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Proponents of the legalization of psychedelics also argue that we need to consider the risks of not <\/em>legalizing these substances. As long as psychedelics remain illegal, there\u2019s a high risk that they\u2019ll be contaminated\u2014or even substituted\u2014with more dangerous substances. In Australia in 2021, for example, the much stronger and more dangerous drug NBOH was sold as LSD<\/a>, resulting in a series of hospitalizations. MDMA is also frequently \u201ccut\u201d with fentanyl, for which an overdose can be fatal. Legalizing psychedelics would reduce the black market<\/a> for these substances, introducing potentially life-saving regulations and purity controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n People arguing against the legalization of psychedelics say that we still don\u2019t fully understand the risks. They also point to three types of potentially harmful consequences: 1) predatory commercialization; 2) environmental and cultural damage to indigenous communities; and 3) the possibility that patients will be emotionally or physically abused by their therapists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The short-term risks of psychedelics<\/a> mostly involve temporary but unpleasant experiences (\u201cbad trips,\u201d which some argue have therapeutic value<\/a>). More concerningly, the intense effects of psychedelics can include intense mood swings and erratic behavior<\/a>, so there\u2019s the possibility that someone who takes a psychedelic outside of a controlled setting might injure themselves and others<\/a>, even on rare occasions going as far as suicide<\/a> or murder<\/a>. Psychedelics can also interact with prescription medications<\/a>, particularly antidepressants, sometimes with the risk of lethal toxicities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The long-term physical and psychological risks of most psychedelics are low for most people. However, for a small proportion of vulnerable individuals, they can trigger more enduring psychotic episodes<\/a>. LSD, in particular, has been linked to hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD)<\/a>, a rare but debilitating disorder in which people continue to experience hallucinations and other perceptual and emotional disturbances for years afterward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even though these risks only affect small proportions of psychedelic users, critics warn that we don\u2019t understand enough about what causes most of these negative consequences to be able to reduce them. More widespread use will also mean higher absolute numbers of people falling victim to these negative consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the benefits of psychedelics<\/a> are borne out in the current clinical trials, big money will follow. Investors are already scrambling to get in early on startups and clinical trials<\/a> and Big Pharma is busy filing patents<\/a>. The flood of attention and money to this previously neglected area is a positive step, but there\u2019s also reason to be wary of the involvement of Big Pharma and Wall Street. If psychedelics are legalized, this new money and attention may introduce more problems than it solves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, the possibility that psychedelic-based treatments may be more effective than currently available medications poses a paradox to pharmaceutical companies. On the one hand, they want to jump on board and make money from any new treatments. But on the other, if psychedelics can effectively cure mental health conditions after only one or two doses, these companies risk losing massive volumes of customers who pay to take a pill every day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With this conundrum in mind, companies are rushing to stake out territory by applying for patents related to psychedelic-assisted therapy and products. Critics point out that if these patent applications aren\u2019t handled skillfully, they risk severely limiting scientific research (and, by extension, the number of people who eventually benefit from the research). Some of the applications even include components of basic therapeutic protocols<\/a> such as \u201cthe subject listens to music,\u201d \u201cthe room comprises a bed or a couch,\u201d and \u201cthe therapist responds to the subject if the subject initiates conversation.\u201d Patent offices are usually well-equipped to distinguish between general practice\/knowledge and genuinely original ideas<\/a>, but in such a new field it might take a few years for them to figure it out (and the patents granted in the meantime will continue to be valid). This is a real concern and has already happened: A patent granted to Compass Pathways in 2020 arguably impeded the progress of research on creating synthetic versions of psilocybin<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Opponents of legalizing psychedelics also argue that we need to be wary of potential damage to the environment. As long as we lack good synthetic versions of these compounds, demand for naturally grown plants will skyrocket. Many of these plants are already facing increasing pressure in their original habitats from the recent boom in psychedelic tourism. Peyote, in particular, is very slow-growing\u2014one tiny cactus can take up to 15 years to mature\u2014and the species is increasingly threatened<\/a>. The ayahuasca vine and its DMT-containing complement, chacruna, are also becoming hard to find in some areas<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There\u2019s also the risk of damaging local cultures through neocolonialism and cultural appropriation<\/a>, as well as by causing intense internal conflicts. What happens, for example, when the $4.4 trillion Western wellness industry juggernaut crosses paths with a small indigenous community? We have an early example of this<\/a>, and the outcome wasn\u2019t good: The first Westerner to consume psilocybin mushrooms and then write about it for a wide audience was R. Gordon Wasson (then the vice president of J.P. Morgan). Wasson went to Mexico in 1955 and sought out famed Mazatec healer Maria Sabina Magdalena Garc\u00eda. He gained access to her sacred ceremony by lying that his son was in danger, later taking spores of the mushroom back to the U.S. for analysis. His writings revealed the healer\u2019s location, and soon, Western tourists seeking mushrooms flooded her village. Her community blamed her for the resulting chaos and retaliated brutally\u2014they burned her house down, killed her son, put her in jail, and eventually threw her out of her village. She later died in poverty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When evaluating new drugs, regulators typically examine whether there\u2019s potential for abuse. However, the \u201cabuser\u201d in these scenarios is almost always the person who takes the drug, with \u201cabuse\u201d meaning addiction or overdose. While most psychedelics are low-risk in terms of user<\/em> abuse, there\u2019s a real risk that users of psychedelics may be abused by others<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many psychedelic substances cause extreme physical incapacitation and profound psychological vulnerability. If they become widely available through the legalization of psychedelics, they could be used as date rape drugs or to commit theft. Worse, they may be used by people in positions of therapeutic power to assault people in their care. Malevolent ayahuasca \u201cshamans\u201d in the Amazon, for example, have sexually assaulted people who are under the influence<\/a> of the brew. Many people seek out psychedelics to heal from sexual assault trauma, and being assaulted while revisiting the original trauma in an attempt to heal it is damaging on the deepest level. The reports of abuse aren\u2019t limited to unregulated contexts. In 2015, PTSD sufferer Meaghan Buisson was abused by her therapists during and after an MDMA clinical trial<\/a> sponsored by the well-respected Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. This happened even though there was a camera in the room. <\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Benefits for Mental Health Are Potentially Revolutionary <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Risks Appear to Be Low<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Legalization Would Mean More Monitoring and Quality Assurance <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Case Against Legalization<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
We Don\u2019t Fully Understand the Risks<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Commercialization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Environmental and Cultural Damage <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Potential for Emotional and Physical Abuse<\/h3>\n\n\n\n