Skip to main content

A modest drug reform proposal

I'd like to codify my idea to de-Schedule I the psychedelics.  The characteristics for Schedule I are as follows:
1) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

2) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

3) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
The first qualification is preposterous for every major psychedelic save perhaps ketamine, which is already Schedule III anyway.  This should be obvious.  The minor ones (such as 5-MeO-DMT) are basically unknown in the literature, but that shouldn't give the DEA license to schedule as they see fit.  If you look at their declarations (see here for example), they usually use new drugs' similarity to existing badly-scheduled drugs as evidence toward putting them in Schedule I (by the transitive property of bullshit). The DEA, like police organizations everywhere, tends to try and maximize their own power, which means pushing for maximum restrictions.  In 1985 they overruled expert medical testimony and their own Administrative Law Judge to place MDMA (or ecstasy) in Schedule I.  These days they dispense with the expert testimony altogether, and just emergency schedule any new drug a Deputy Administrator thinks is dangerous.

The second and third qualifications have been often used as a kind of Catch-22.  No studies means a lack of accepted use, and a lack of accepted use means that no studies can be approved. Nevertheless with the memory of Tim Leary fading, there has been an unexpected renaissance in psychedelic studies in the last few years (see here and here for example, as well as this article from my post yesterday.)

So here's my proposal.  We've basically got two categories of psychedelics in Schedule I: those that probably don't belong there, and those that definitely don't belong there.  In the second category, I'd put LSD, psilocin and psilocybin (the stuff behind magic mushrooms), peyote (and pure mescaline), MDA, and MDMA.  These are substances that have been studied definitively enough to refute all three conditions of Schedule I, and at the very least should be moved down to Schedule III.  The first category is the rest of the psychedelics, mostly a bunch of analogs of the classics.  There really haven't been any good studies of those, but the DEA should allow any established medical outfit that wants to study them a license until there is an accepted judgment one way or the other.

I think the only exception I would make is for PCP, which has such a bad reputation and so few benefits it's not worth fighting over.  Thoughts?


Popular posts from this blog

Why Did Reality Winner Leak to the Intercept?

So Reality Winner, former NSA contractor, is in federal prison for leaking classified information — for five years and three months, the longest sentence of any whistleblower in history. She gave documents on how Russia had attempted to hack vendors of election machinery and software to The Intercept , which completely bungled basic security procedures (according to a recent New York Times piece from Ben Smith, the main fault lay with Matthew Cole and Richard Esposito ), leading to her capture within hours. Winner recently contracted COVID-19 in prison, and is reportedly suffering some lingering aftereffects. Glenn Greenwald has been furiously denying that he had anything at all to do with the Winner clusterfuck, and I recently got in an argument with him about it on Twitter. I read a New York story about Winner, which clearly implies that she was listening to the Intercepted podcast of March 22, 2017 , where Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill expressed skepticism about Russia actually b

Varanus albigularis albigularis

That is the Latin name for the white-throated monitor lizard , a large reptile native to southern Africa that can grow up to two meters long (see pictures of one at the Oakland Zoo here ). In Setswana, it's called a "gopane." I saw one of these in my village yesterday on the way back from my run. Some kids from school found it in the riverbed and tortured it to death, stabbing out its eyes, cutting off its tail, and gutting it which finally killed it. It seemed to be a female as there were a bunch of round white things I can only imagine were eggs amongst the guts. I only arrived after it was already dead, but they described what had happened with much hilarity and re-enactment. When I asked why they killed it, they said it was because it would eat their chickens and eggs, which is probably true, and because it sucks blood from people, which is completely ridiculous. It might bite a person, but not unless threatened. It seems roughly the same as killing wolves tha

The Conversational Downsides of Twitter's Structure

Over the past couple years, as I've had a steady writing job and ascended from "utter nobody" to "D-list pundit," I find it harder and harder to have discussions online. Twitter is the only social network I like and where I talk to people the most, but as your number of followers increases, the user experience becomes steadily more hostile to conversation. Here's my theory as to why this happens. First is Twitter's powerful tendency to create cliques and groupthink. Back in forum and blog comment section days, people would more often hang out in places where a certain interest or baseline understanding could be assumed. (Now, there were often epic fights, cliques, and gratuitous cruelty on forums too, particularly the joke or insult variety, but in my experience it was also much easier to just have a reasonable conversation.) On Twitter, people rather naturally form those same communities of like interest, but are trapped in the same space with differe