We are raised in a society where most drugs are illegal. The reason they are illegal is because they are dangerous for yourself and for society. Or at least, that is what we all learn. But have you ever analyzed where and how we learn this? In the past years I have been researching (psychedelic) substances for academic papers and mostly out of curiosity. I have learned that the story we are told about drugs is a lot more nuanced than most of us assume.
This blogpost gives a brief introduction into different psychedelic substances and the political history behind their illegalization. A lot of the content I took from an academic paper I wrote in a class on Philosophy of Mind & Technology in 2020.
The exact topic of that paper was this:
The conceptual difference between consciousness and self-awareness and its relevance for the development of AI. How psychedelic research challenges the current dualistic psychological phenomenology, and the concepts of consciousness and awareness.
However, for this blogpost I have left out everything on the dualistic psychological phenomenology, the concepts of consciousness and awareness, and the link to Artificial Intelligence (AI). Because that is too far from the purpose of this post. Moreover, the part where I discuss consciousness and awareness in AI was the only part of the paper that received criticism from my professor😉 Hence I do not deem that part academically sound enough to share.
So what then is the purpose of this post? My aim is not necessarily to convince you to like or do psychedelics, but rather to restore a societal misconception of psychedelics that we learn throughout our lives. If the story then ends up changing your conception of the (personal and societal) value of psychedelics the way it did for me, that is a nice bonus.
This blogpost is built up as follows: first, I will explain what psychedelics are. Then, I will explain why there is a negative public doxa on their research and use due to illogical restrictions. In other words, the political history of the illegalization of psychedelics. Because most of the people reading this blog are from a world in which (western) science is valued highly, I will support the shared information with articles and (additional re)sources as much as possible.
If you have feedback or suggestions after reading the post I am always open for that. And if you noticed that I missed events, information, arguments etcetera please let me know! I am aware I do not know everything yet and I would love to learn more :)
Psychedelics: what are they?
Psychedelics are a class of psychoactive drugs that trigger altered states of consciousness and visual and auditory changes. From a chemical and neuropharmacological perspective they are a diverse group of substances, but they are united by the experiences they induce (Letheby 2015, 173). The ‘classical’ psychedelic drugs are naturally occurring compounds, and include Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin and Dimethyltryptamine (DMT). Although there are other psychedelics, I will focus on these three here since they are the most researched and known ones.
Psilocybin is a molecule that is found in ‘magic mushrooms’ and has presumably been used for its healing powers since 5.000 to 10.000 BC. The earliest evidence of its use was a mural in Northern Australia 10.000 BC. The history of psilocybin is fascinating and I will go deeper into it in another post. Scientific studies to investigate the short- and long term effects of psilocybin started in the 1960s and are continuing today. People who take psilocybin have reported feelings of wellbeing, interconnection, visual hallucinations, and a more intense appreciation for nature and life itself (Psychedelic Times, n.d.).
LSD is made from a substance found in ergot, which is a fungus that infects rye. As a separate psychedelic substance it gained popularity (and a controversial reputation) in the 1960s when Harvard Professors Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert experimented with it. Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann is known for being the first to synthesize, ingest, and learn of the psychedelic effects of LSD. Many people who have used LSD reported having profound transformational experiences through visual hallucinations and an intense feeling of universal interconnection. Until this day LSD is one of the best-researched psychedelics and has been found successful in treating anxiety and depression, and addictions such as alcoholism.
DMT is considered to be psychedelic that yields the most powerful experiences. DMT is a ‘substituted tryptamine’ and has been found in nearly every living organism, and unlike any other psychedelic it has also been found in humans. Recent evidence strongly suggests that DMT is “a natural endogenous component of the neurochemical composition of the human brain” (Germann 2016, 92). To put that more simply, DMT occurs naturally in our brains, the brains of animals and in plants. DMT has been used for thousands of years in ayahuasca healing rituals by Indigenous Amazonian peoples.
I find it important to distinguish between DMT and ayahuasca here. Although the ceremonially prepared ayahuasca drink contains DMT, it does not have the same background nor effects. Ayahuasca ceremonies have been performed by Indigenous peoples for thousands of years and are embedded in an Amazonian spirituality that is rooted in thousands of years of cultural knowledge traditions. Its effects are primarily described as healing and bringing the person in closer connection to the spiritual. The Indigenous peoples that have been using ayahuasca and people that have been introduced to it through the Indigenous also describe it as a (plant)medicine rather than a psychedelic drug.
DMT as a separate substance (not via ayahuasca) is most commonly administered via inhalation (smoking it). People who have used DMT in this way reported feeling as if they had been taken into alternate realities and interacted with interdimensional beings.
5-Methoxy-N,N-Dimethyltryptamine, or 5-MeO-DMT for short, looks like DMT but is slightly different. It is also known as O-methyl-bufotenin or ‘bufo’. Like DMT it is a very old molecule which is ubiquitously present in the plant- and animal kingdom (Smith 1977). However, it has not yet been discovered in humans. It is for example found in a toad species, the Colorado River toad. In general 5-MeO-DMT has not yet been widely researched. Like DMT, 5-MeO-DMT also has traditional shamanic use. The difference between DMT and 5-MeO-DMT is that DMT experiences tend to be very visual whereas experiences from 5-MeO-DMT tend to lead more to a perspective change or may even include what feels like a near-death experience. However, both substances reported to trigger profound experiences of alternated consciousness.
Although a significant amount of psychologists and professional neuroscientists are aware of DMT and its ubiquity in nature, not many are aware of its fascinating characteristics in terms of potential healing effects. Psychedelic substances in general are not widely researched. Presumably this is partly due to the fact that methodologically valid research on DMT and other psychedelics is highly restricted in most countries: in the U.K. DMT e.g. is classified as a ‘Class A drug’[1] and in the U.S. as a, similarly restricted, ‘Schedule I substance’[2] (Germann 2019, 96-97). However, this classification, and the negative doxa around psychedelics, is not necessarily evidence based.
In the next paragraph I will give an overview on the history of psychedelic research, why it has become illegal, and why this is illogical (and makes very little sense).
History of the restriction
Serious scientific interest in psychedelics followed from the accidental discovery of the extremely potent psychoactivity of LSD in the 1940s (Letheby 2015, 174). During the 1950s and 1960s these drugs were researched in several different ways (Sessa 2012). However, after the initial phase of promising systematic scientific research on psychedelics, a banning on the use of drugs in light of the ‘War on Drugs’ in the late 1960s brought it to an abrupt end.
The restriction on psychedelic drugs is not based on scientific evidence (and even contradicts research outcomes that psychedelics can be successfully utilized in therapy and treatment of cocaine addiction). Instead the restrictions were all based on political propaganda from the US in the 1960s. There were several political motives for this propaganda campaign. I have categorized them in three motives. When writing my paper in 2020 I was only aware of the first one. The other two I learned from the Netflix docuseries How To Change Your Mind and finding myself in another research spree thereafter.
The first motive was that the propaganda was directed to the counterculture that opposed the Vietnam war, and it was these same opponents that used psychedelic drugs. In the 1970s the United States were fighting the Vietnam War. The largest group of opponents were ‘hippies’. These hippies were also the largest users of (psychedelic) drugs at the time. By declaring a ‘War on Drugs,’ Nixon tried to invalidate the entire counterculture that was against the Vietnam war (Germann 2019, 178). The ‘War on Drugs’ consisted of 1) making drugs illegal, and 2) starting a widespread media campaign on the dangers of drugs for society and people themselves. Because of this propaganda campaign hippies were put off as crazy, drug addicts that are a danger to themselves and society. As a consequence the criticism on the Vietnam War from this group was not taken seriously.
Photo of Isle Of Wight Festival 1970
After a research spree a few weeks ago in the summer of 2022 I learned that the political motives of the illegalization of psychedelics drugs went much further. So this brings me to the second motive: the racist background of the War on Drugs. In 2016 Harper’s Magazine uploaded an interview from 1994 with Nixon’s Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs John Ehrlichman. In the interview Ehrlichman admits the real impetus for the War on Drugs. Namely that it helped Nixon stay in the White House. The following is a citation from the interview with Erhlichman:
The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
The publication was commented on by CNN, and various other websites. The racist and antileft motives behind the War on Drugs is thus not merely speculation as it has been admitted by one of Nixon’s closest assistants. The origins of the War on Drugs are deeply rooted in racist violence, as explained by this video. In short, the history of racial drug policies in the US started with opium laws in the 1880s targeted against Chinese workers who had come to the US to build railroads. After the railroads were finished they were seen as a threat to white American workers and as a ‘solution’ opium smoking (done by many of the Chinese) was demonized and made illegal. Notably, opium use in the forms of pills was not demonized or made illegal. This was the way in which white people used opium. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law legally excluding a specific community. Later a similar thing happened with cocaine and African-Americans leading to the 1914 Harrisson Narcotics Ad, which became the blueprint for the global war on drugs. Harry Anslinger later extended it to heroin and cannabis. Then Nixon federally declared the War on Drugs in 1970s. And it further escalated in the 1980s.
After having watched the Netflix docuseries I learned yet another shocking motive of the illegalization of psychedelic drugs. This is the third motive I will mention. As mentioned before, in the 1960s and 70s there was a lot of research on psychedelics substances. One of the institutions researching these substances at the time was the CIA. Like other researchers, the CIA was looking for potential usages of LSD. However, the purpose of the CIA research on LSD was different. The main purpose was to find out if and how LSD could be weaponized. Simply put, their main were that LSD-use led to laughter, no longer wanting to follow orders, and even wanting to quit the army. The reason for this was that LSD-use led to the realization that life was not about war, but about love and peace. The first episode in the Netflix series mentions that the CIA’s experiment went ‘horribly wrong’. One of the people involved in the experiment was a very influential author. This author was so excited about LSD’s potential benefits for society they started handing it out to students (in the Bay Area) to ‘try and change a whole generation’. LSD, among some other psychedelic substances, became widely used among this generation. As a result this generation started massively dropping out of school, but also out of the army. Why? Because through psychedelic experiences they concluded that life was not about war, but about love and peace.
Photo via photonshouse
This provided another strong motive for Nixon’s government to start the War on Drugs: they were losing their large capacity of young people that had to serve in the Vietnam War. In an upcoming review post on the docuseries I will comment on this motive and its underlying implications more.
Research on Psychedelic Drugs During The War On Drugs
Thusfar I have discussed the political history of the illegalization of psychedelic substances until the 70s. We are now living half a century later so if the motives were primarily political, and the research outcomes in the 60s and 70s were so promising, why are these psychedelic substances still illegal? In this paragraph I will answer this question.
Scientific research on the effects of psychedelic substances on humans has actually been resumed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. One of the first, and up to this day most influential, studies during these years was conducted by dr. Rick Strassman on the molecule DMT. Since then many more studies have been conducted (Lethaby 2015, 174). However, because the drugs are still classified as highly illegal it is difficult, if not impossible, to even do scientific research with them.
Is it not good that research is impossible since there have also been researches indicating the danger of these drugs? – This is something I imagine some people will say. I had originally put the sentence ‘Indeed, it is important to note that there have been research articles published that found several dangers in usage of drugs’ here, assuming that I would find supporting articles to that claim. However, that actually turned out to be a lot less easy. I initially searched on GoogleScholar for ‘negative effects psilocybin’ in the period 1950 to 1980. I specified for this period because this is when research supposedly came out that was used as a scientific argument to illegalize psychedelics. Based on the articles mentioned on the first ten Google pages, only 10 articles seemed relevant. Based on the abstracts and sometimes the results section of those 10 I could boil it down to about six articles that indicate negative outcomes. This one I could not access. Of these six I will go over three.
The first article is on ‘Long term psychological effects of LSD’ and concludes that ‘data indicates that the danger of long-lasting psychological damage is low when the drug is used by emotionally stable subjects in secure, controlled settings. But subjects with psychiatric disturbance, unstable personalities, and current crisis situations have experienced pathological behavior temporally related to the drug ingestion. Adverse reactions were not reported in well-controlled studies with normal subjects, indicating the drug’s relative safety for continued research’ (McWilliams & Tuttle, 1973).
The second article is titled ‘Chronic Celebral Effects of Alcohol and Drug Abuse’. It actually concluded that ‘there is no consistent evidence that long-term marijuana, hallucinogen, or sedative use causes lasting neuropsychological disturbance.’ The same article did mention deficits in abstract thinking as a consequence of LSD, which would come closest to a negative outcome of what I had read thusfar. However, it also mentions that ‘The deficits in abstract thinking reported by some LSD studies are similar to deficits others have reported among alcoholics. Since the LSD studies were not controlled for alcohol use, their interpretation is difficult.’ In other words, the deficit in thinking could potentially be completely explained if controlled for alcohol use (meaning it is not the LSD that causes deficit thinking, but alcohol).
The third relevant source I will discuss in a separate blog post. I first had an extensive philosophical argument here but a friend that proofread this post rightly noted that it is a sensitive topic and she raised some important questions that I want to address more elaborately (and research more). The source I found in my GoogleScholar search discusses LSD and LSD-induced psychosis and to what extent LSD induced psychosis can lead to schizophrenia. I remember learning that LSD can trigger a psychosis also after using the drug. However, research has found no link between use of psychedelics and psychosis. The Recovery Village summarizes the research as follows: "while using LSD can trigger the onset of schizophrenia in people who are predisposed to it, the drug can’t cause the disorder on its own. People who use LSD are no more likely than anyone else to have a psychotic disorder." (The word 'disorder' when describing certain chronic mental states I will also discuss in this next blog post).
Now many articles contain a lot of concepts and names that I am not familiar with since I am not in that field of study (Chemistry, neuropsychology, psychiatry amongst others). So I might have missed some. It could of course be that there is research out there that I could not find, maybe it is not accessible through GoogleScholar. And it could be that these research outcomes are valid and scientifically sound. However, so far I am going to treat the case as innocent until convincingly proved otherwise.
A reason for why there is not a lot of research on psychedelics after the 1970s is that since psychedelics became illegal it is also illegal to do scientific research with them, except when it is approved by the state. This means that it is very difficult to verify both positive and negative outcomes of research that has been done before the 1970s. Luckily, research has not been completely stagnant and in recent years more and more research is being done again. I did not search for recent research with negative outcomes yet because I was primarily trying to find negative research outcomes on which the War on Drugs policies could have been scientifically based. After spending a significant amount of time trying to find this I am not (yet) very convinced the War on drugs policies were in fact based on scientific research.
However, if you find academic articles with negative outcomes (from whatever year) please send them to me. I am curious to what extent the methodology and classification of ‘negative outcome’ can be disputed, to what extent negative outcomes come forth out of set and setting, when these articles came out, if there is a bias in the initial research topic, by whom such research is funded (governmental agencies, private institutions, which universities) etcetera. Or if they are valid, scientifically sound and important to be mentioned for that reason.
Consequences of the War on Drugs
Societally, the widespread media campaigns on the ‘War on Drugs’ during the 1960s and 1970s still negatively influence the public opinion on psychedelic drugs today. This is partly due to the fact that most psychedelic substances are illegal. But it is also a consequence of other factors. One of them is education.
The War on Drugs campaign started with Nixon’s speech in 1971. In this speech he declares drug abuse ‘public enemy number one’. There is a lot to unpack in a speech from only a few minutes. But for now especially his announced policy measures are relevant. Nixon declared a worldwide offensive in dealing with sources of supply (of drugs). Nationwide he declared the start of a new educational program. These measures were executed through a new organization within the White House led by dr. Jaffe. Dr. Jaffe’s primary responsibilities were research and education. Remember how at the beginning of this post I asked where what we learn about drugs comes from?
I had my first information and awareness session on drugs already in primary school. In this session we learned about the dangers of different drugs, including smoking and alcohol. What has always stuck with me from these sessions, besides getting to wear glasses that were to make it seem as if you were drunk and then we all had to walk in a straight line (and obviously failed), was that the instructor described alcohol as the single most dangerous substance. He even said that alcohol should be on top of the official hard drug list. Why? Because the dangers of that drug for society and people is the largest by far. The following resources on the Netherlands, US, and UK testify to the negative impact of alcohol on personal health and society. (Although the violence and human trafficking that is behind cocaine is also not to be disregarded).
Netherlands. The Expertisecentrum Alcohol page on ‘societal damage due to alcohol use’ mostly contains textual information and no statistics, but there are some references.
United States. Data on the impact of alcohol use in the United States here. Interestingly, on most websites I looked on for information and statistics about the United States ‘financial costs’ were mentioned before ‘agression and violence’ and ‘family’. Or social consequences such as aggression, violence, family, etcetera were expressed in financial costs (‘violence as a result from alcohole costs the US state x amount of money’).
United Kingdom. Also according to UK experts ‘alcohol should be considered a Class A drug because it is so dangerous.’ For some statistics and references check this website. The Liberty House mention violent crime and drunk driving are mentioned as some of the greatest societal risks of alcohol (ab)use.
However, in reality alcohol is considered a soft drug (in the Netherlands) and is legal. For a long time I wondered, why if alcohol is so dangerous for people and society is that not illegal too? I think this question testifies the illogicality of the current classifications of drugs. After all, if research outcomes and data about the danger for people’s health and for society would be the main determinant of what substance makes it to the lists, alcohol would also have to be on it. This means that the determinants are different.
How drugs are classified under UK law
In theory, illegal drugs are classified according to how dangerous they are, taking into account both the harm they may cause the user and society in general. It is possible to legally possess and supply any classified drug with authorization from the Home Secretary. This is how scientific research can legally use drugs.
1. Class A drugs (possession 7 years in prison, supplying/producing up to lifetime in prison) include: crack cocaine, crystal meth, cocaine, ecstasy (xtc), heroin, LSD, magic mushrooms.
2. Class B drugs (possession 5 years in prison, supplying/producing up to 14 years in prison) include: amphetamines, barbituratse, cannabis, codeine, ketamine, Ritalin, synthetic cannabinoids, synthetic cathinones.
3. Class C drugs (possession 2 years in prison, supplying/producing up to 14 years in prison) include: anabolic steroids, diazepam, GHB, GBL, Khat, Piperazines (BZP)
Education about drugs is given on primary schools and high schools and through various campaigns. These are explicit forms of education where authorities tell us ‘drugs are bad’. There is also implicit forms of education. Can you think of five films or books or series in which a character is using psychedelic drugs? Now in those plots, how many of those characters are said to be going through a ‘bad phase’, have ‘gone off the rails’, are begged by friends and family to stop, disrupt the lives of themselves and the people around them? And in how many of those plots does the psychedelic drug use of the character have positive outcomes, for example on anxiety, depression, addiction? And in how many of the plots does it bring the character self-knowledge, does it open their hearts, or does it start a spiritual awakening or journey?
The effects I am suggesting in the latter two questions are, respectively, based on research outcomes and experience/testimonials from many people I know. However, the question of the ‘bad phase’ is what we see in most films, books, or series. That is, if you could think of a plot in which a character used a psychedelic drug at all. Many stories on drugs include drugs such as cocaine, speed, MDMA or XTC etcetera. Non-chemical drugs such as truffles, mushrooms, and other plantmedicine are mentioned a lot less. In my memory, LSD is also mentioned a lot less or it is described as a party drug. Still, most people that think of the dangers of drugs do include psychedelic drugs in that category.
Taking LSD was a profound experience, one of the most important things in my life. LSD shows you that there’s another side to the coin, and you can’t remember when it wears off, but you know it. It reinforced my sense of what was important – creating great things instead of making money, putting things back into the stream of history and of human consciousness as much as I could. – Steve Jobs
I do not mean to say with this that everyone that uses psychedelic drugs has a positive experience. Rather, I want you to become aware of where our perception on certain substances is coming from. And I hope that these reflections make you more aware of the imbalance of positive and negative experiences: through explicit education and media we learn mostly about negative experiences, but from experience and testimonials I can confidently tell you that there is also a lot (in my environment the vast majority) of positive experiences and outcomes.
Importantly also, experience is very much subjective. So what one person regards as a negative experience (not having control, feeling fear), another person might regard as positive (surrender and acceptance, going through fear to heal from it). Same story the other way around.
So to come back to the consequences of the War on Drugs, our societal conception of psychedelic substances has been shaped by years of heavy propaganda (or call it policy measures), including educational programs. This conception is what we teach the next generations, what remains to be taught through media, and what keeps determining policy and politics on psychedelic drugs to this day. I would almost dare to claim that not a single politician that advocates for illegality of psychedelic substances has read a single academic article on it, nor tried it themselves, though I’d happily be proven wrong on that claim. For a country (the Netherlands, and probably also other western countries) that, be it implicitly or explicitly, values facts and rationality as the basis of policy decisions that is very interesting. Because it shows how deeply embedded our conception on psychedelic drugs is and thus how much the War on Drugs propaganda has influenced and is still influencing us today.
Another possibility is that some politicians who are advocating the illegality of psychedelic drugs have read the academic research but decide to ignore it. I know too little about politics in specific countries to make any specific and well-argued claims but it could be that politicians today have a similar motive for keeping/making psychedelic drugs illegal as Nixon had in his time. Specifically, to depoliticize certain groups that are using these psychedelics.
In the part about education as a consequence of the War on Drugs I already briefly mentioned illegality of drugs in playing a role in its conception in society. In particular, I said that the fact that alcohol is not considered a hard drug testifies that the determinants of what substances make it to the hard drug lists do not make sense. Supposedly the determinant would be how dangerous a substance is. The fact that alcohol is not on the lists makes that determinants disputable. But what makes it even more dubious is the fact that psychedelic drugs have significantly different effects than other psychoactive substances like alcohol or cocaine, and have even been found to be successful in treating other drug addictions, and are not dangerous, nor addictive (Germann 2016, 96-97). For instance, psilocybin (which is found in ‘magic mushrooms’) is non-addictive and has actually been effectively used for addiction treatment (Bogenschutz and Forcechimes 2017) and exhibits remarkably low toxicity. The prohibition of DMT is especially paradoxical given the fact that it is a natural endogenous component of the human brain (Germann 2019, 194).
I’m glad mushrooms are against the law, because I took them one time, and you know what happened to me? I laid in a field of green grass for a few hours. “My God! I love everything.” Yeah, now if that isn’t a hazard to our country … How are we gonna justify arms when we realize that we’re all one? – Bill Hicks, comedian
Psychedelic renaissance
Although psychedelic research has been blocked or limited by legal restrictions for years, science has been witnessing what many call a ‘psychedelic renaissance’; a new wave of psychedelic research (Muthukumaraswamy et al. 2013; Sessa 2012). For a very accessible source on this I can recommend the Netflix docuseries ‘How to change your mind’. I will soon be uploading posts in which I reflect on these episodes. Partly because I learned new things, but also partly because the cultural anthropologist inside of me was frustrated. Stay tuned!
Thank you for making it all the way to the end of this post. I sincerely hope that you learned something new (or if you knew all of this already, that is even more amazing) and maybe even changed your perspective, or made you a bit more open-minded. Know that I spent a LOT of hours into researching and writing this with articles and information supporting my claims. Let me know what you think, and if you have any feedback, suggestions or questions I will try to go into it.
Bibliography
Alcohol Change UK. 2022. “Alcohol Statistics.” Alcohol Change UK. Accessed on 14 September, 2022 via https://alcoholchange.org.uk/alcohol-facts/fact-sheets/alcohol-statistics.
Baum, Dan. 2016. “John Erhlichman: ‘Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” Vietnam Full Disclosure. 25 March, 2016. https://www.vietnamfulldisclosure.org/john-ehrlichman-know-lying-drugs-course/.
Baum, Dan. 2016. “Legalize It All. How to win the war on drugs.” Harpers Magazine. April (2016). Accessed on 14 September, 2022 via https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/.
Bogenschutz, Michael P., Alyssa A. Forcehimes, Jessixa A. Pommy, Claire E. Wilcox, Paulo César Ribeiro Barbosa, Rick J. Strassman. 2015. “Psilocybin-assisted Treatment for Alcohol Dependence: a Proof-of-Concept Study.” Journal of psychopharmacology 29 (3): 289-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881114565144.
Cormier, Z. 2015. "No link found between psychedelics and psychosis." Nature, 4 March 2015. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.16968.
Expertisecentrum Alcohol. 2022. “Maatschappelijke schade door alcoholgebruik.” Trimbos Instituut. Accessed on 14 September, 2022 via https://expertisecentrumalcohol.trimbos.nl/items/details/maatschappelijke-gevolgen-alcoholgebruik.
Germann, Christopher B. 2016. "N, N-Dimethyltryptamine: An endogenous neurotransmitter with extraordinary effects." Off The Lip – Transdisciplinary Approaches to Cognitive Innovation. Conference Proceedings: 89-105. https://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/4271.
Germann, Christopher B. 2019. "5-methoxy-N, N-dimethyltryptamine: An ego-dissolving endogenous neurochemical catalyst of creativity." Activitas Nervosa Superior 61 (4): 170-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41470-019-0063-y.
Gottschalk, L. A., J. L. Haer, and D. E. Bates. "Changes in social alienation, personal disorganization, and cognitive-intellectual impairment produced by sensory overload." Arch Gen Psychiatry 27 (1972): 451. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1972.01750280019004
Grant, Lgor, and Lynn Mohns. "Chronic cerebral effects of alcohol and drug abuse." International Journal of the Addictions 10.5 (1975): 883-920. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826087509027346.
Hairston, Stephanie. 2022. "Can LSD Cause Psychosis?" The Recovery Village. Accessed on 18 September, 2022 via: https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/lsd-addiction/psychosis-and-lsd/
Letheby, Chris. 2015. "The philosophy of psychedelic transformation." Journal of Consciousness Studies 22 (no. 9-10): 170-193. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2015/00000022/f0020009/art00011.
Liberty House. 2022. “How Alcohol Addiction Impacts Society.” Liberty House. Accessed on 14 September, 2022 via https://www.libertyhouseclinic.co.uk/alcohol-addiction-impacts-society/.
LoBianco, Tom. “Report: Aide says Nixon’s war on drugs targeted blacks, hippies.” CNN Politics. Last updated 24 March, 2016. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html.
Lockie, Alex. 2019. “Top Nixon adviser reveals the racist reason he started the ‘war on drugs’ decades ago.” Insider. Published on 31 July, 2019. https://www.businessinsider.com/nixon-adviser-ehrlichman-anti-left-anti-black-war-on-drugs-2019-7.
McWilliams, S. A., & Tuttle, R. J. (1973). Long-term psychological effects of LSD. Psychological Bulletin, 79(6), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034411
Moss, Howard B. "The impact of alcohol on society: a brief overview." Social work in public health 28.3-4 (2013): 175-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2013.758987
Muthukumaraswamy, Suresh D., Robin L. Carhart-Harris, Rosalyn J. Moran, Matthew J. Brookes, Tim M. Williams, David Erritzoe, Ben Sessa, Andreas Papadopoulos, Mark Bolstridge, Krish D. Singh, Amanda Feilding, Karl J. Friston, and David J. Nutt. 2013. “Broadband Cortical Desynchronization Underlies the Human Psychedelic State.” Journal of Neuroscience 33 (38): 15171-15183. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2063-13.2013.
Public Health Nigeria. “What Classification of Drug is Alcohol.” Public Health Nigeria. Accessed on 14 September, 2022 via https://www.publichealth.com.ng/what-classification-of-drug-is-alcohol/.
Segen's Medical Dictionary. n.d. "Class A drug." Retrieved June 26, 2020. https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Class+A+drug.
Sessa, Ben. 2012. The Psychedelic Renaissance: Reassessing the Role of Psychedelic Drugs in 21st Century Psychiatry and Society. London: Muswell Hill Press.
Silverman, Julian. 1971. "Research with psychedelics: Some biopsychological concepts and possible clinical applications." Archives of General Psychiatry 25.6 (1971): 498-510. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1971.01750180018004
Silverman, Julian. 1972. "Stimulus intensity modulation and psychological dis-ease." Psychopharmacologia 24.1 (1972): 42-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00402905
Smith, Terence A. 1977. “Tryptamine and Related Compounds in Plants.” Phytochemistry 16(2): 171-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(00)86778-3.
Titchener, Nick. 2019. “What are the drug classifications in the UK?” Lawtons Solicitors. Published 5 June, 2019. Accessed on 14 September, 2022 via https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-are-the-drug-classifications-in-the-uk/.
United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). n.d. “Drug Scheduling.” Retrieved June 26, 2020. https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling.
VICE. 2020. “The War on Drugs is Designed to Discriminate.” Youtube. Published on 4 November, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf5qFIpJ2sk.
Extra sources
Youtube. 2017. “DMT: The Spirit Molecule.” Accessed on June 2, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZqVqbkyLM&t=185s.
Footnotes
[1] ‘Class A drug’ is a category of controlled drugs under the ‘UK Misuse of Drugs Act 1919’ and includes the misuse substances which are considered most dangerous. Examples besides DMT are cocaine, heroin, MDMA, opium, but also LSD and mescaline (Segen’s Medical Dictionary, n.d.).
[2] The Controlled Substance Act (CSA) classifies drugs into five distinct schedules based on the drugs’s acceptable medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential. Schedule I drugs, substances or chemicals are defines as drugs with no accepted medical use at this moment, and a high potential for abuse and/or physical and/or psychological dependence. Examples besides DMT are heroin, XTC, marihuana (cannabis), but also LSD and peyote. Schedule V drugs are said to have the least potential for abuse or dependency. Examples are cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine, Lomotil and Parapectolin (United States Drug Enforcement Administration, n.d.).
Comments