captain__sock

Let me begin by saying that I am highly skeptical of the value of recreational psychedelic experience, particularly when it is compared to the value of mindfulness practice, such as meditation.

How do you articulate the value of the recreational psychedelic experience? How can you measure whether the experience is in fact valuable enough to be defended? If it were the case that the value of the psychedelic experience was purely neutral (it didn't tend to make people's lives better, it didn't tend to make people's lives worse), would it still be worth advocating for legalization?

I love this reference. But to be fair, Socrates did lose the trial.

Hi MAPS,

I am curious in what you mean when you say you are researching the ways that psychedelics may have spiritual uses. I must also express that I am highly skeptical of this endeavor, as spirituality is an extremely confusing, sensitive, and intimate subject, as I imagine you may know. Like many others, I began spiritual seeking after some drug-related experiences, and this led me to spend 8 months in a meditation intensive Zen monastery. Though 8 months of practice and over 1,000 hours of sitting mediation were barely enough to scratch the surface of spiritual practice, it was enough for me to make the assessment that drugs, though seemingly spiritual, were actually fundamentally antithetical to genuine spiritual practice. Many teachers of spirituality, particularly within Buddhism, make similar assessments. How will you deal with claims like this as you go forward with your research? Who will have the authority to make the claims about what the spiritual uses of drugs may be? What will your role be in speaking of the confusing matters of the spirit and how drugs may affect it?

I also want to urge caution, as humbly as I can. Your findings and conclusions will profoundly influence many, so please move forward with as much care and integrity as you can muster. Good luck with your work.

That is a good point. Legally, the distinction hinges upon the argument about paternalism. Can the government tell me that I can't do something, even if doing it doesn't hurt anyone?

The issue may be that we already accept a certain amount of legal paternalism. Seat belt laws are a perfect example. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights if I don't wear a seat belt, but I'm legally obligated to anyway. I think most of us would agree that this law makes sense, even if we aren't big fans of paternalism.

I suppose we have to find out if doing psychedelics is at least as dangerous as not wearing a seat belt. I imagine MAPS does not believe that they are as dangerous, and I am inclined to agree. However, there are still plenty of concerns to be had about whether psychedelics can be dangerous. I think MAPS would agree that they can be. It's a tricky debate. At the least, I think we could all agree that meditation does not have the potential for danger that psychedelics have.

How's the morphine treating you?