Remember that the bureaucratic red tape keeping these drugs from market has to do with moralism around psychoactive drugs.
Plenty of other safe and effective treatments have made it through the “excessive” red tape because actually the red tape isn’t the issue. Dismissiveness and fear of psychoactivity is.
That and the War on Drugs™ is built on the foundation of oppressing "minorities".
The public has now been so conditioned by this bullshit that most people think that they're being protected by these stupid laws, when in fact they're either directly or indirectly suffering because of them.
Wealthy people have access to doctors to get prescribed speed, ludes, opiates, whatever they want.
It's specifically the targeting of minorities using criminalization of street drugs that led to modern media and academic misperception of "overpolicing" in minority areas for all crime.
Sometimes I get a bit overzealous on quoting, and sometimes, on commas, too. But in the case of the Nixon years it was anti-war hippies too.
But yes, it's well documented that the war has always been about targeting "others". It's bad enough that the laws exist, what is crazy-making is that a large portion of the population has been brainwashed into thinking they're a good thing.
I mean, substance abuse is a real problem. I’ve known people who have ruined their life because of it, all-the-while touting that it doesn’t affect them.
Yes, drugs affect you. It also ends up affecting those around you.
That being said, the current state of laws, enforcement and culture is definitely not aligned for success in this arena.
My brother died from a heroin overdose. The fact that it was illegal didn't prevent it and might have been a small contributor in that the purity and strength of the drugs could not be known.'
My mother died as an alcoholic. Totally legal drug that's socially acceptable.
I'm well aware of the abuse potential. But a lot of this (including the current fent epidemic) could be addressed by legalizing and regulating these drugs (including the aforementioned ibogaine).
So yes, the current state of laws, enforcement and culture are definitely aligned for the clusterfuck of what we have today (by virtue of that's what we have).
There will always be risks, but society has shown that it's ok with risks in that alcohol and tobacco are legal. They've just been brainwashed by the drug war propoganda.
The way 'substance abuse' is framed and conceptualized deliberately obscures the fact that many if not most people with substance abuse problems are 'medicating' a psychological problem.
Of course anyone can get in trouble with drugs, so I agree with you too!
But I want to just try and shake up the "Drugs affect you. They affect those around you" point a bit because often the drug use is a symptom, the consequences of hopelessness, neglect, depression, abuse etc is whats actually making its presence felt, and even teetotalers have bad life outcomes when they're carrying that around.
> They affect those around you" point a bit because often the drug use is a symptom, the consequences of hopelessness, neglect, depression, abuse etc is whats actually making its presence felt, and even teetotalers have bad life outcomes when they're carrying that around.
Except, they can cause these problems in the first place. I agree that when those problems exist, drugs can make them worse too.
While I will always advocate for the legalization of all drugs, I think it's important to recognize the dangers and not downplay them.
But a lot of those dangers can be mitigated by having them legal and regulated.
A lot of abuse is about self-medicating from pain, so if they're going to do that let's at least make it safer to do so and have support to transition off when ready.
The red tape is actually hundreds of millions of dollars that some private party has to cough up to fund clinical trials, and with many of these drugs, there is no hope in recovering because they’re not patentable. And we don’t really have any mechanism for publicly funding clinical trials for unpatentable but public-benefitting drugs.
Has to cough up millions under the current system. A rule change to make that process easier would be helpful, but an agency which receives over half its funding directly from the industry it oversees is not likely to make policy which damages those same companies.
Not really. Clinical trials are expensive because clinical trials are expensive. Especially when you’re looking for weaker and weaker effects in more specific populations.
There are a number of things that can be done that can fix the broken system while retaining the things that work in our existing system.
1. Public funding for approval for public interest drugs that immediately are available at generic-level prices.
2. Public funding for patent early buyouts so that they can be available at generic-level prices sooner.
3. Public drug bounty systems: award non-trivial payouts to companies that discover and perform all clinical trials, and immediately make the drugs available to the public at generic-level prices.
4. Broad cooperation and alignment on approval trial requirements across drug regulators in Canada and the EU, such that drug trials don't need to be duplicated 3 different times in 3 different jurisdictions with slightly varying rulesets. This would benefit both public interest ideas above as well as existing private interests.
5. Add price controls to drugs which have benefited from publicly funded research. I'm not a fan of price controls in general as I think there is a risk that good drugs won't be researched if they're too risky, but in the case of a private company taking some compound that public research discovered, patenting the chiral[0], and funding the clinical trials for it...the public has already done all the hard work and you're just
6. Allowing for risk-assumed early approval drugs which are regulated for content purity, but which do not do full testing for drug interaction/benefit/risk assessments. Users could explicitly opt out of the guarantees that come with full FCC approval. This is actually how the much of the developing world treats drug regulation: sure you can buy it and it will be what it says on the label, but there is no guarantee that it will fix your problem or that it wont harm you. While that sounds potentially troublesome, there is a reason why rich people sometimes travel to poor countries for medical care, and this is a huge part it. If you've got 9 months to live, you don't care that the FDA is trying to determine if it might kill you...you are already on your death bed. Holding back a potential cure is inhumane.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry) Chirality is an extremely common loophole that allows drug companies to patent drugs that work exactly the same as an unpatentable drug, so that they have price protection for it.
As an alternative to some of these, do you think that compulsory patent licensing could work? This would allow for day one generics while still ensuring that the parent holders get paid.
For what it's worth, ibogaine in particular is more dangerous than more common psychedelics. There have been many fatal overdoses which isn't true of, for instance, LSD.
Totally. But nearly every pharmaceutical on the market has a lethal dose, some of which are rather close to their effective dose (and some really painful deaths).
We should find what the safe and effective dosage is, if there is one, the same way we do for other drugs.
People have flat out done stupid, lethal things on psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin. I'm one of them. I did a small dosage first time, and took a bath. Fell asleep and almost drowned.
> Plenty of other safe and effective treatments have made it through the “excessive” red tape because actually the red tape isn’t the issue. Dismissiveness and fear of psychoactivity is.
Probably money is the issue. None of these compounds can be patented now.
In general you're correct, but not about Ibogaine, which is actually cardiotoxic and prolongs the QT interval, sending the odd man out into the next life.
You're painting an unfairly one-sided picture here, as so many pro-psychedelic people do. These are highly potent chemicals that also have negative physical and psychological effects. It's not as simple as "these substances cure a condition and the fear of psychedelics keep them repressed". You are saying the equivalent of the college stoner friend saying "you can't get addicted!" about weed. Even this article points to fatal heartbeat irregularities as a dangerous side effect that has limited ibogaine's study.
Look at the analogs act, and the banning of salvia in many US states, and tell me that such things as negative externalities are actually weighted in the decision to ban things. Look at 2CB. It was banned for having chemical proximity to DOB, which is banned for having chemical proximity to DOM. 2CB was banned for the entire justification of "posing a risk to the public health." Where? How? I've never found data published to justify this scheduling, other than chemical proximity. Why was DOM banned? Posing a risk to the public health. Again, I can find no data.
Salvia is even more clowning. Republican legislators heard that it's a more potent psychedelic than LSD and rushed to ban it without even knowing what "potency" means for such a comparison. This has led to such beautiful pieces of law as Florida (I believe) banning salvia divinorum and all chemical derivatives thereof. Salvia divinorum is a plant. There are no chemical derivatives. They should have specified its principle component, salvinorin A, and its derivatives. These banning were made entirely out of moral panic, with not even a modicum of pharmacological or chemical understanding.
Ibogaine's safety profile is pretty good, there is a reason it is legal in other countries. The cardiac risk factors can be mitigated with appropriate screening, and of course, it should not be consumed with other substances with unsafe drug interactions. To the extent that Ibogaine fatalities have occurred, they are largely attributable to these two factors. In this respect, it is not especially different from plenty of other OTC and prescription drugs.
This is not to say that Ibogaine has zero risk for either physical or psychological harm---this cannot be said about very many perscription drugs either. However, given its efficacy for treating opiod use disorders alone, along with its safety profile, there is no logical reason that it should be out of reach for mental health professionals, let alone a schedule 1 substance.
This would be a great rebuttal if I said “this is why ibogaine isn’t approved and used broadly!” but I didn’t. I said this is why we don’t really understand Ibogaine.
The action proposed in the article is: more trials
Plenty of other safe and effective treatments have made it through the “excessive” red tape because actually the red tape isn’t the issue. Dismissiveness and fear of psychoactivity is.