iftttwall

Sundays are kind of sad. But the day before is a sadder day. Get it?

Yes, it’s time to talk about dad jokes. Specifically, when and why did dumb puns become synonymous with fatherhood? When I was a kid, knock-knock jokes were clearly kid jokes, but so were the silly one-liners:

Why did the moron tiptoe past the medicine cabinet? He didn’t want to wake the sleeping pills.

Why are elevator jokes so good? They work on many levels.

Want to hear a joke about construction? I’m working on it.

They say the drunk never writes the drinking song, so I’m sure those kiddie jokes were not written by kids. But they seemed very clearly in the rug-rat wheelhouse.

Now we’re supposed to hear a joke like “I was addicted to soap but now I’m clean” and think first and foremost of fathers?

“As a dad myself, the term ‘dad joke’ dawned on me during Halloween,” recalls Eugene Romberg, a real estate investor at webuyhousesinbayarea. (I think you can guess where in California he lives.) “I told my wife, ‘There’s only one thing I’m afraid of during Halloween.’ She replied, ‘Which is?’ And I said, ‘Exactly.’ It was a joke I saw on Reddit.” Said wife glared at Mr. Romberg for a bit and then muttered that he had just made his first “dad joke.” He had to go and look it up.

Wikipedia says that dad jokes are a short joke or pun, sometimes deliberately unfunny or overly simplistic. But didn’t dad used to be a font of fatherly wisdom? How did he morph into the designated doofus?

“The dad joke is old-fashioned,” says Tom O’Keefe, co-host of the podcast Reel Spoilers. Middle-aged men like him grew up with one-liners: Set-up, punchline. But today’s comedians are more storytellers, or observational types. As one-liners aged, so did the folks telling them, until finally they became fathers themselves. Their joke style, like their hairstyle, aged along with them.

“There’s this sort of idea of the dad as put out to pasture,” says Julian Velard. And he should know. The singer/songwriter appears as “Sad Dad” on Howard Stern and NPR.

“Moms are viewed as active in our culture, whereas the dad is just sort of on the sidelines,” Velard says. The humor they dispense “is not considered witty. The whole idea of a dad joke is that you’re giving up on trying to be sexy or smart or anything.”

Except for lovable. A big except!

Dad jokes make kids smile. Mom laughs despite herself. And now you will too:

Two goldfish are in a tank. One says to the other, “Do you know how to drive this thing?”

Happy Fathers Day!

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2NisFzC
via IFTTT

I’d been meaning to blog about Blades v. U.S., and an amicus brief in the case that my First Amendment Clinic Alyssa Morones, Avi Schick, and Brenna Scully and I filed on behalf of Profs. Professors Susan Herman, Raleigh Hannah Levine, Justin Murray, and Jocelyn Simonson; but I was waiting until all the briefs were filed and I could pass them along together with our brief. That has now happened, so I link to them below, together with an excerpt from our brief:

Summary of Argument

“If a public trial doesn’t make a sound, is it still a public trial?” State ex rel. Law Office of Montgomery Cty. Pub. Def. v. Rosencrans, 856 N.E.2d 250, 256 (Ohio 2006) (Pfeifer, J., dissenting). It is not. The Public Trial Clause protects the public’s right to participate in the justice system by perceiving how the law is being applied, as it is being applied. This participation in turn helps the public ensure judicial proceedings are fair and promotes public confidence in those proceedings.

But using a husher [a kind of white noise machine-EV]—a “trial by mime,” id. at 257—while prospective jurors answer voir dire questions denies the public its right to hear those responses. Just as locking the public outside glass courtroom doors would constitute a closure because the public could see but not hear the proceedings, so too does a husher.

That closure is not rendered constitutional merely because the proceeding’s transcript is available for purchase—reading words­, many days after watching the corresponding silent physical acts, is not contemporaneous observation. And a general interest in juror candor and privacy cannot justify abrogating the public trial right; rather, a closure can be justified only if it satisfies the Waller test, a test that was not used by the lower court to support the closure in this case. See Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984); see also Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 214-15 (2010).

Argument

[I.] The public trial right necessarily protects the right to both see and hear the proceeding.

A public trial right guarantees the public’s right to “sit, look, … listen,” and “react to what they see and hear.” Citizens serve as “auditors” who “form independent judgments about the quality of government actions.”

But this citizen monitoring works only “when there is something substantive to observe,” and “observe” here must mean hearing as well as seeing; watching “facial expressions and body language of … the participants at the bench,” Pet. 19a, is an inadequate substitute for the combination of watching body language and hearing real language. When the audience cannot hear what is said, criminal proceedings may be “technically open to public view [yet be] in practice obscure,” and that is so for voir dire as much as for other phases of the criminal justice process.

[A.] Hearing juror responses to voir dire questions is necessary to promote a fair proceeding.

A public audience during voir dire reminds the judge, lawyers, and prospective jurors that they are being monitored. The public “serves as a check on governmental and judicial abuse and mistake, guarding against the participants’ corruption, overzealousness, compliancy, or bias.” Trial participants “will perform their respective functions more responsibly in an open court than in secret proceedings.” Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 588 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring) . And prospective jurors may be “encourag[ed] … to answer questions truthfully” when their responses are heard by the public.

That is because “[t]here is power in the act of observation: audiences affect the behavior of government actors inside the courtroom, helping to define the proceedings through their presence.” And the public trial right plays an especially vital role during stages of the adjudication process that lack a jury, like voir dire, because listening to the process is the only role that ordinary citizens can play at that stage. Listening to voir dire is how the public monitors who is chosen to serve on the jury, a choice that implicates the public’s interest in equality, representation, fairness to the defendants, and fairness to the public.

An inaudible voir dire forecloses the audience from serving as that check. The criminal justice system presumes that lies and prejudice, for example, often cannot be detected by watching silent physical acts. Hints of those dangers may be conveyed in words, tones, and pauses. So long as the actors pantomime justice, no audience member will be the wiser.

Rather, to monitor the voir dire participants, the audience must be able to hear the answers as they are given. Id. at 2182, 2228. Prospective jurors’ responses to voir dire questions may alert the public to potential prejudices, just as a prosecutor’s questions and statements during voir dire “may support or refute an inference of discriminatory purpose” in the use of peremptory challenges. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 97 (1986). Indeed, the public interest in observing voir dire is especially important given the importance of the jury selection process as a safeguard for both equal protection and due process, as illustrated in this Court’s post-Batson holdings:

“[T]he importance of the selection of the jury in open court is further highlighted by Batson and its progeny …. Such prohibition [on biased peremptory challenges] has been held not only to ‘safeguard[] a person accused of crime against the arbitrary exercise of power by prosecutor[s] or judge[s,]’ but to advance ‘public con­fidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system.’ It is because ‘[t]he petit jury has occupied a central position in our system of justice’ that the above safeguards are in place, and the public, including members of an accused family, ensure the preservation of these safeguards through the ability to openly observe court proceedings.”

Campbell v. State, 205 A.3d 76, 92 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019) (citing Batsonand later cases, as well In re Oliver, supra, a Public Trial Clause case) .

[B.] Hearing juror responses to voir dire questions is necessary to ensure public confidence in the justice system.

Public trials also “heighten[] public respect for the judicial process” because even citizens who do not attend the trial know that it is open to the public and that other citizens may attend and hold actors accountable. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982). Because others are present, the public can better trust that “standards of fairness are … observed,” Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984), and that the “truth … prevail[s],” Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction 112-14 (1998).

But with inaudible voir dire, the non-attending citizen cannot presume that the audience has performed its auditor function or that the jury has been fairly selected. “The jury trial cannot truly serve the function of legitimating the verdict and the proceedings if the public does not know what has happened or believes that important events have occurred behind the scenes.”

In this role, public trials serve a “‘community therapeutic value'” by “vindicat[ing] the concerns of the victims and the community in knowing that offenders are being brought to account for their criminal conduct by jurors fairly and openly selected.” Press-Enter. Co., 464 U.S. at 508, 509 (quoting Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 570 (1980) (plurality opinion)). But when proceedings are held in secret, “an unexpected outcome can cause a reaction that the system at best has failed and at worst has been corrupted,” decreasing public confidence in the justice system. Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 571 (plurality opinion). For example, if a jury empaneled by inaudible voir dire acquits when the public expects a conviction—or vice versa—the public’s inability to hear the voir dire responses may engender suspicions of jury bias or corruption.

A partially inaudible criminal justice process cannot “satisfy the public desire for justice” or serve as a “cathartic outlet for community outrage and concern.” Because “experiences with … procedural fairness and trustworthy motives spill over into broader attitudes about the criminal justice system’s legitimacy,” inaudible voir dire may lead the public to suspect that the jurors’ unheard responses were significant and resulted in injustice.

And the jury and public audience serve as complementary representations of the community—including people with different backgrounds, experiences, and interests. Attendees may be members of groups otherwise excluded from juries, such as people who are friends and relatives of the accused and victims; noncitizens; and, in federal courts and more than half of states, people with felony convictions, a group that is skewed along other demographic dimensions as well.

[II.] Delayed access to a transcript is not a substitute for contemporaneously watching and hearing voir dire.…

[III.] A general interest in juror candor and juror privacy cannot justify a violation of the public trial right to hear voir dire.…

Conclusion

Inaudible voir dire prevents the public from participating in the justice system—thus sapping public trust and depriving the system of the other benefits of public supervision. And a delayed and costly transcript cannot substitute for listening to voir dire as it happens. Routine use of hushers should therefore be recognized as violating the right to a truly public trial.

And here are all the briefs:

• The petition for certiorari.
• The government’s brief in opposition.
• The reply brief.
• The Cato Institute amicus brief.
• The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press amicus brief.
• Our full amicus brief.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2NisF2A
via IFTTT

6/21/1989: Texas v. Johnson is decided.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3fGHacs
via IFTTT

When psychedelic drugs finally become legal in the United States and elsewhere around the world, the lion’s share of the credit will go to Rick Doblin. Since founding the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) in 1986, Doblin has argued forcefully for the benefits of frequently demonized substances such as MDMA, LSD, psilocybin, and ibogaine in helping people cope with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and other debilitating problems. For decades, Doblin and MAPS have been pushing not just for social and cultural acceptance but also for legal and medical legitimacy.

MAPS is currently sponsoring Phase 3 clinical trials of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy as a treatment for PTSD. Within the next few years, if all goes well, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to approve MDMA—a.k.a. Ecstasy, which the federal government banned in 1985 as a dangerous party drug—for use by prescription as a psychotherapeutic catalyst. Further down the line, psychedelic drugs such as LSD and psilocybin, which the FDA has recognized as a “breakthrough therapy” for depression, could undergo a similar legal transformation.

The rehabilitation of these once-vilified substances is a remarkable development that signals growing recognition of their life-enhancing uses and perhaps growing tolerance of people who choose to explore that potential. During a late-February ride from Manhattan to the John F. Kennedy International Airport, Reason Editor at Large Nick Gillespie talked with Doblin about his role in this psychedelic renaissance and the experiences that drew him to the movement.

“I’m very much a child of the Cold War,” Doblin says, recalling how he was taught to “duck and cover” at school during the Cuban missile crisis. His fear of nuclear Armageddon, ecological catastrophe, and genocide was the initial impetus for his vision of “mass mental health” facilitated by psychedelics, which he believes can have a unifying effect when used properly.

Although MAPS is doing everything by the book in seeking approval of MDMA as a prescription drug, Doblin’s vision goes beyond such doctor-approved uses. He aspires to a world in which people can use psychedelics responsibly without permission from physicians or priests. “Psychedelics are tools,” Doblin says. “They’re not good or bad in and of themselves. It’s how they are used. It’s the relationship you have with them.”

Reason: Many people are attracted to psychedelics because they’re fun. The approach that MAPS has taken, by contrast, suggests that psychedelics should not be taken lightly. Talk about the contrast between using psychedelics recreationally and using them by prescription as an FDA-approved medicine.

Doblin: I think that people should have the fundamental human right to change their consciousness. When we talk about the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, underlying all of that is freedom of thought. Psychedelics are a good example of the freedom of thought that we should have.

At the same time, when people take these things for recreational purposes and they’re only looking for positive experiences, that can be dangerous if difficult material comes up. If you suppress it, you could end up worse off.

So there’s an aspect of it that’s work. One of our big statements is that difficult is not the same as bad. A lot of times, when people approach this as a recreational experience and stuff that’s difficult comes up, they think, “Oh, it’s a bad trip.” But it is also an opportunity. So medicalization is a strategy for achieving broader access and mass mental health.

When you talk about medicalization, are you saying we need to maintain the current power structure, dominated by big pharmaceutical companies and doctors who serve as the high priests, telling us what to do and how to think? Or do you have in mind a broader concept of mental health or well-being? 

Our core approach is that we are not the guides. We don’t know where people need to go. People are their own guides. One of the concerns I have about traditional medicine, psychiatry, and psychotherapy, is that even in certain shamanistic settings, the healers are the ones who do it to the person. The power is in their hands. They’re like surgeons; you don’t do your own surgery. But when we’re talking about mental surgery, we’re trying to empower people to heal themselves.

To give you a sense of how much progress we’re making, one of our donors, Bo Shao of the Evolve Foundation, said that when we had the psychedelic revolution in America, his parents in China were suffering under the Cultural Revolution. His parents’ whole generation is traumatized still from that. So he’s helping us bring [MDMA-assisted] therapy to China. We’ve already brought Chinese psychiatrists and psychotherapists to the United States for training, and I’ve been to China.

We’re trying to universalize it in that way. But unlike most pharmaceutical companies, since we’re doing it in a nonprofit context, we’re trying to help people learn how to heal themselves without having to come to doctors and therapists.

Give me an update about what’s going on with FDA approval of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD. 

On November 29, 2016—30 years after I started MAPS—we had what’s called an end-of-Phase-2 meeting. That’s where we discussed the data we had gathered during Phase 2 of clinical trials and whether the FDA would permit us to go to Phase 3 [the final step before approval of a prescription drug]. The FDA said yes. Then we negotiated for eight months every aspect of the Phase 3 research protocol, the statistical analysis plan, all the other supplemental material that’s required when you move into Phase 3.

Phase 1 usually involves healthy volunteers, and you’re just trying to understand what the drug does. In Phase 2, you do pilot studies, exploring who is your patient population, what are your doses, what is your treatment, who do you exclude and include. Phase 2 enables you to figure out how to design Phase 3, where you do the large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled studies that are required to prove safety and efficacy. Those are the pivotal studies that you need to get approval for marketing.

There are also Phase 4 studies, which the FDA can require after you’ve gotten permission to market the drug when there’s additional information that the FDA wants. We’ve already negotiated some of the Phase 4 studies. If we succeed in Phase 3, the FDA wants more information about how we can tell ahead of time who will respond well to the treatment and what we can say about relapse rates. How long do the benefits last?

Another aspect of it is that many drugs are tested in adults, and then they’re prescribed to adolescents or children. If we succeed in adults, which means 18 or over for PTSD, then we have to do studies in 12- to 17-year-olds. If that works, then we have to study 7- to 11-year-olds who are traumatized.

When do you expect the Phase 3 trials to be completed?

The FDA can come back and say, “You did everything right [and] it looks good, but we’re going to screw you over and stretch it out a little bit.” We don’t expect that the FDA will screw us over, because, once we got permission for Phase 3, we entered into this eight-month process where we negotiated everything. That’s called the special protocol assessment process. If you end up agreeing, you get what’s called an agreement letter, and the FDA is legally bound to approve the drug, assuming you get statistically significant evidence of efficacy and no new safety problems arise. And since MDMA has been around for 40, 50 years, tens of millions of people have taken it. We have a very good idea of the safety profile.

The other thing the FDA did, after we got this agreement letter, was declare MDMA a breakthrough therapy [a designation that is supposed to facilitate approval of promising drugs for hard-to-treat conditions]. So I don’t think that they want to screw us over in any way.

In Phase 3, we have to do a minimum of two studies, each with 100 people, and then we do what’s called an interim analysis for each study. We have enrolled almost 100 people in the first of the Phase 3 studies, and the interim analysis will be sometime in late March or early April this year. Then we’ll know whether we need to add anybody for statistical significance. We expect to start the second Phase 3 study in the summer of 2021, so we should have all the data from the studies near the end of 2021.

Then we submit that to the FDA, and sometime in 2022, depending on how long the review process is, we anticipate approval. We’re also negotiating with the European Medicines Agency, and that process is a year or two behind the FDA process.

We will need to raise around $30 million to finish Phase 3 in Europe and a similar amount to finish Phase 3 in the United States. But in the history of MAPS, we’ve received donations of about $80 million, and we’re trying to do this all through donations. We don’t want investors. I’m sympathetic with for-profit people getting involved. The scale of the problem is so big. We need all sorts of people, sponsors, resources. But I think the profit motive has warped American health care.

You’ve created a public benefit corporation to market MDMA. How will that work?

For the first 25 years of MAPS, I just assumed that once MDMA became a medicine, it would be a generic medicine, and it would be sold for very little money. MDMA was invented by Merck in 1912, so the patents have expired.

Even though I wrote my Ph.D. thesis at the Kennedy School of Government on the regulation of Schedule I drugs—psychedelics and marijuana—I missed something. I learned only in 2013 or so that President Reagan had signed a bill to provide incentives for developing drugs that are off patent. Since they couldn’t give patents, they offered what was called data exclusivity, which means you’re the only one who has the right to use your data in the U.S. for five years. If you do pediatric studies, you get an additional six months of data exclusivity, which blocks generic manufacturers from even applying, and it takes the FDA at least six months to review those applications.

So we’ll have about six years of data exclusivity. Once I realized that we might actually be able to sell MDMA for more than cost as a medicine, I realized that we had a different story to tell our donors: We’re not going to be perpetually asking you for money, and we might even be able to make money from the sale of MDMA and use that for more research.

Doing that is a taxable situation, and you can’t stay inside the nonprofit. A public benefit corporation is a kind of corporation that explicitly seeks to maximize benefits for the public rather than the return to shareholders. So that’s the approach we’re taking.

This is kind of like a legal version of the Brotherhood of Eternal Love, which sold LSD for practically nothing in the ’60s and ’70s.

They are a big part of the story of psychedelics that not that many people know about. They really had a mission beyond making money, and the mission was consciousness change. That is our mission.

All of our research staff and all of the research money has been transferred to the public benefit corporation. We are taking not just a new approach to mental health, which is psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, but a new approach to marketing medical treatments and drugs. We will charge somewhat more than the MDMA costs us, but we’re not going to charge the maximum of what the market will bear, because that means that you have fewer people paying more for treatments. And our goal is mass mental health.

Where is the biggest pushback against what you’re doing coming from these days? 

So far we haven’t had a whole lot of pushback. Veterans [with PTSD] have such support, particularly among Republicans—there’s a libertarian strand of the Republican Party that has been a strong ally in looking at the benefits of illegal drugs. There’s pushback from drug warriors who think that we need to demonize these drugs to justify the drug war. That’s why there’s been suppression of research into cannabis.

The pushback that I’ve received has not been from regulatory agencies. The FDA is aware that there are enormous numbers of people with mental conditions that are not adequately helped by the currently available medicines. That’s why MDMA was declared a breakthrough therapy. Psilocybin has been declared a breakthrough therapy for treatment-resistant depression. The most important new development in mental health treatment over the last 20 or 30 years has been ketamine for the treatment of depression.

Traditional psychiatry is coming around. Yesterday, the American Journal of Psychiatry published an article about psychedelic psychotherapy and how it was promising.

I’ve received pushback from some of our donors who ask, “Why did you accept money from [Republican] Rebecca Mercer, [libertarian Charles] Koch, or others? Just stick to medicine.” Right now some of our big donors are telling me that I should shut up about drug policy reform and the fundamental human rights issue, that we want people to have access to these drugs with proper education and harm reduction, but outside of medicine and religion.

There is potential for pushback from fundamentalist Christians, although it doesn’t seem to have happened yet. Classic psychedelics like psilocybin have been used for thousands of years for religious and medical purposes. Through ego dissolution, people have mystical experiences, which suggests there may be a common mystical core in all the world religions. There are fundamentalists in each religion who say, “My religion is the only true one. Everybody else is an infidel.” The psychedelic mystical experience is a challenge to that. But I think the fundamentalists could benefit from a deeper appreciation of their own spirituality.

The other possible area of pushback is parents worrying about their kids. If you make this into a medicine, they might think, kids will get the message that it’s a good thing.

What we’ve been doing in that regard is going to festivals around the world where young people are using these psychedelics. A lot of them are using them unwisely and irresponsibly and just trying to have a good time. Difficult material comes up, and they then try to suppress it or push it down. We’ve started what we call the Zendo Project, which does psychedelic harm reduction at Burning Man, the Boom Festival in Portugal, all over the world. The aim is to help people who have difficult trips work through them and process the material, so that they don’t get tranquilized, don’t go to the hospital, and don’t have long-term mental disruptions because of it.

You once told a reporter, “We’re not the counterculture; we are the culture.” And I think there’s some real truth to that. But you’re also a parent. How old are your kids, and have you tripped with them?

My kids are 25, 23, and 21. We’ve wanted to take [psychedelics] together as a family.

That sounds both wonderful and kind of terrifying.

When I had my bar mitzvah at 13, that really opened the door to psychedelics for me. Because my bar mitzvah did nothing. I mean, it was a nice party. I was the oldest of four kids. I really did expect that there would be some kind of spiritual experience. And the next morning, I’m lying in bed, and God did not come. Nothing happened, but I was ready for it. I felt really bad, and I felt that traditional rituals didn’t really work.

When our children turned 13, my wife and I spoke to them and said, “If you want to try marijuana or MDMA, come to us and, and we’ll give it to you.” It was the best anti-drug strategy that we could have had, this idea of doing drugs with your parent. They all said, “We’re not ready yet.”

This is a hot-button issue. But if you look at the traditional cultures that have successfully integrated psychedelics in America, we have half a million members of the Native American Church who use peyote. We have many people who are using ayahuasca in ritual settings, and they’ve successfully integrated ayahuasca. They believe that children who are interested in ceremonies with their families can try small amounts of these drugs, and they don’t have age limits. I went to a Native American Church ceremony with my wife. It was to celebrate the wedding of a friend of ours. A Navajo man brought his 9-year-old son, who took peyote and stayed up the whole night. Now, the 9-year-old didn’t take the full dose.

I am pro–family values. When it comes to the education of children, we should leave that to the families, not to the government. In 23 states, the laws prohibiting the use of alcohol by young people have a parental override that allows parents to give alcohol to their children, even at restaurants, as long as there is parental supervision. So this idea is not foreign to America. I think that’s the way it should be with other drugs as well.

One of the worst parts of the drug war is that parents are scared to be honest with their own children. To have the intrusion of the government in the most intimate situations, where you are trying to educate your children, is terrible. I know people who still hide the fact that they smoke marijuana from their children, even in legalization states like Massachusetts, where I live.

Do you worry about a backlash? In the 1960s, there was Diane Linkletter’s suicide, which her father, the writer Art Linkletter, blamed on LSD. In the 1980s, there was the cocaine-related death of Len Bias, who had just been drafted by the Boston Celtics. His death helped inspire draconian anti-drug legislation. Do you worry about that sort of thing?

I very much worry about backlash. That’s why we’ve reached out to the police, to try to educate them. That’s why we are actively reaching out to bipartisan groups and why we have bipartisan financial support.

In the ’80s and ’90s, when the rave milieu was just starting, people were taking MDMA and overheating sometimes and dying from hyperthermia. Those stories were used to block the research, and then drug warriors could say there’s no evidence of benefit. But now, because we have strong evidence of benefits, the situation is different.

Now we’re able to say that in a medicalized context, we’re getting more benefits than risks. When people take drugs in nonmedical settings and have tragic outcomes, I don’t think that’s going to boomerang back on the research. We have veterans who have attempted suicide multiple times but are now PTSD-free after MDMA-assisted therapy. I felt that it was necessary for us to work with the hardest cases and to show that there can be value for people who have unsuccessfully tried other treatments.

So we accept people [into our trials] who have attempted suicide in the past. We just have to create a very strong support system for people throughout the entire process of therapy. And so far there’s only been one person who has attempted suicide—unsuccessfully—during our trials. The therapist thinks that was a person who was in the placebo group and was so disappointed she wasn’t randomized to the MDMA group that she lost hope.

We have to be very careful not to exaggerate the benefits or minimize the risks. I think what happened with Timothy Leary and others in the ’60s is that the government was exaggerating the risks and denying the benefits. And Tim and others, I think, did the opposite: exaggerated the benefits and minimized the risks.

We try to be clear that this doesn’t work for everybody. This is not a panacea. It’s not a one-dose miracle cure. What we’re really doing is psychotherapy. It’s not that you just take this pill and something changes for the better. That provides a level of comfort, when people understand that it’s done in a therapeutic context.

The best way to think about drugs is that they’re tools. Psychedelics are tools. They’re not good or bad in and of themselves. It’s how they are used. It’s the relationship you have with them.

The government’s survey data indicate that nearly half of Americans 12 or older have tried marijuana at least once, while about 10 percent have used it in the last month. With hallucinogens, which includes LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline, about 16 percent of Americans say they have tried them, and less than 1 percent report using them in the last month. Assuming everything is medicalized or legalized in the way you want, do you think psychedelics will ever be a mass phenomenon?

No. I think it will be something that more people will want to use, because it helps you with core aspects of being human: What’s the meaning of my life? What do I think about death? Why do I have social anxiety? How do I deal with trauma? I think larger numbers of people will use psychedelics, but it’s not going to be like weed. Psychedelics are used intermittently, and the emphasis is on what you bring back from the experience. There won’t be a lot of frequent users, but there will be more occasional users.

Are you optimistic about the future? Not just for psychedelics, but for a broader vision of self-guided mental health?

I’m very optimistic. This idea of unification, of a common mystical core, of shared humanity and global spirituality—it also permits greater individuality. Sometimes people think that when you talk about global spirituality or shared mystical experiences, all the differences are washed out. I think it works both ways. The more we can understand our commonality, the more we will appreciate our differences and our uniqueness.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. For an audio version, subscribe to The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Ykp61Z
via IFTTT