[HN Gopher] Australia legalises psychedelics for mental health
___________________________________________________________________
Australia legalises psychedelics for mental health
Author : mjfisher
Score : 60 points
Date : 2023-06-30 20:52 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| [deleted]
| andrewstuart wrote:
| But marijuana is illegal most places in Australia.
|
| So young people who want to get high have to go to drug dealers
| who also offer meth and other drugs.
|
| Thanks, conservative Australian politicians.
| artdigital wrote:
| You can get medical marijuana
| enneff wrote:
| > Experts say there is still the risk of a "bad trip", which is
| when the user has an unpleasant experience while under the
| influence of drugs.
|
| All psychiatric treatments have a risk of a bad experience,
| including talk therapy.
| JimtheCoder wrote:
| A bad trip on Shrooms will have a much more negative effect
| than a bad talk therapy session...
|
| Don't ask me how I know this.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Bad therapy can have a longer lasting effect and be much more
| corrosive than a bad trip.
|
| Don't ask me how I know this.
| mxkopy wrote:
| I'm actually interested in this story if you wouldn't mind
| expounding
| JimtheCoder wrote:
| A bad trip is a one time event, while I am assuming your
| negative experiences with therapy went on for more than one
| session?
|
| That is what I was getting at - if the therapy is bad,
| there is a chance you can get out before it gets too bad
| and "save yourself".
|
| Once you take the shrooms, there is no antidote, and there
| is no going back. No damage mitigation.
|
| Sorry either way...
| striking wrote:
| I understand there's a rhetorical thing going on here where
| you're inverting the meaning while keeping the same
| structure, but what are you actually arguing? People should
| be taking shrooms _instead_ of going to therapy?
| resolutebat wrote:
| This sounds great on paper, but there's a devil lurking in the
| detail:
|
| > _The regulator says there are currently no approved products
| that contain MDMA or psilocybin. However the reclassification
| means psychiatrists will be able to access and legally supply
| certain medicines that contain them, even if they have not been
| evaluated for safety or effectiveness._
|
| How exactly is this supposed to work then? Are psychiatrists
| supposed to order MDMA/psilocybin directly from the companies
| that produce the two for research use, which presumably involves
| fearsome bureaucracy and markups?
|
| It sounds like this would make the law effectively a dead letter
| until a regular pharma company goes through the Australian
| approval process and gets the drugs into pharmacies. Medical
| marijuana in Australia has suffered from similar issues, with an
| onerous approval process in many states making it very difficult
| to get a prescription.
| CTDOCodebases wrote:
| It's the first step. When cannabis was legalised for medicinal
| purposes the doctors prescribing it had to import it from
| overseas suppliers.
|
| Yes I imagine the next step is a local supplier company goes
| through the valid approval process and gets their product
| approved.
|
| >Medical marijuana in Australia has suffered from similar
| issues, with an onerous approval process in many states making
| it very difficult to get a prescription.
|
| I live in NSW so maybe I am a bit naive but it is possible to
| see a doctor over the internet that works for a dispensary in
| another state and have them issue you a prescription if you fit
| the criteria for medicinal cannabis.
|
| I was cynical about the idea of these dispensaries having their
| own in house doctors but upon further thinking it makes sense
| since some doctors still don't acknowledge the medicinal
| benefit of cannabis.
| robbiep wrote:
| Accessing medical cannabis is weird - each state has
| different access requirements and you must apply in the
| state(s) you practice in for permission (which isn't hard)
| and then to the TGA for approval to prescribe.
|
| The industry/clinic space is really bizzare. I have been
| bombarded with requests to work as a telehealth prescriber.
| Because of the restricted product supply, 'clinics' are
| popping up to offer telehealth consults and then push their
| products.
|
| There are multiple issues with this:
|
| - the doctors doing the prescribing are often junior doctors,
| not GPs or pain specialists
|
| - they have a limited supply of stock and no real
| understanding of 'what is right when'
|
| - pretty much all the stoners I know have now switched to
| medical marijuana (which is fine but for the next point)
|
| - the TGA will at some point come down on doctors who are
| doing shitty consults and just writing the prescription with
| a cursory 'whatever' - because the TGA and medical board in
| this country are not as toothless as in the US
|
| So basically anyone can get a prescription, and the clinics
| are pushing their own (or their own imported) product so they
| get fat margins, and there's some medico-legal risk.
|
| Over time (and even now) there are increasing numbers of GPs
| who can prescribe and there are websites that can point you
| to them which is what I'd recommend if you or a loved one
| actually has a medical condition, as opposed to just wanting
| to get stoned.
| williape wrote:
| It's still a fantastic step in the right direction, giving
| medical practitioners the flexibility to explore new medicines
| for treatment. I know my perception of these substances changed
| after reading How to Change your mind by Michael Pollan:
| https://michaelpollan.com/books/how-to-change-your-mind/
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Mdma is tricky, but psilocybin is easy. Psilocybe cubensis can
| be grown easily at significant scale outside its natural
| ecosystem, due to work by the late Terence Mckenna and his
| brother Dennis.
|
| Treatment centers could grow them on site pretty easily needing
| only basic cleanliness to avoid contamination.
| osullip wrote:
| >Are psychiatrists supposed to order MDMA/psilocybin directly
| from the companies that produce the two for research use,
|
| As I understand it, yes.
|
| Legalisation hasn't meant it has gone mainstream.
|
| It is still going to be administered in very selective cases
| where the current range of medication and therapy has not been
| effective.
|
| It may only be tens or low hundreds of people who receive these
| treatments in the first year.
|
| The efficacy of the treatment will be monitored and the hope is
| that these patients outcomes are positive, which will add to
| the body of work supporting MDMA/psilocybin as an
| antidepressant.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > MDMA - also known as the party drug ecstasy - is a synthetic
| drug that acts as a hallucinogen.
|
| This is misleading. It's 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, an
| amphetamine and a stimulant. It has minor psychedelic effects and
| no one in their right mind would consider it a hallucinogen.
| eindiran wrote:
| It does sound kind of misleading, but the nomenclature is
| correct. It's being used in the broad sense of hallucinogen (ie
| the drug is a dissociative, deliriant, or psychedelic). MDMA
| definitely has psychedelic effects, though less pronounced than
| eg MDA and _much_ less pronounced than eg LSD.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > definitely has psychedelic effects
|
| Does it though? In my (and friend's) experience it
| intensifies emotions and senses but doesn't produce anything
| new, nor is it so intense as to be a "deliriant". I can't
| help but think people are labeling this drug over broadly
| without controlled research, because of its illegal status.
| Lambdanaut wrote:
| A "deliriant" is an entirely different class of drugs to
| psychedelics. Very different indeed, with far more discrete
| hallucinations, indistinguishable from reality, like a
| waking dream.
| kranke155 wrote:
| In my experience yes it does at higher doses
| tanbog5 wrote:
| That's almost certainly from contamination from something
| else in an illegal does.
|
| The mechanism of action of mdma makes anything above
| normal somewhat redundant.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Are you sure it was (reasonably) pure MDMA though? It
| tends to have a ceiling, besides the usual effects of
| having too much speed such as grinding teeth, rapid
| heartbeat and the like.
| cdogl wrote:
| Testing kits are procured easily. Pure MDMA does have
| psychedelic effects. Wikipedia says it's a psychedelic!
| tleilaxu wrote:
| Yes, in higher doses (or lower depending on varying
| personal sensitivities) one can experience psychedelic
| visual effects. These are much more pronounced when
| combined with cannabis.
| sterlind wrote:
| calling MDMA an amphetamine is technically (i.e. structurally)
| correct but also misleading. it's structurally an amphetamine,
| but so are DOB, Sudafed and Wellbutrin. it's stimulating, but
| in a different way from regular amphetamines, because it
| doesn't release dopamine.
|
| the psychedelic effects are lesser than e.g. DOB, but if you
| look at its cousin MDA you can see it's on the spectrum of
| psychedelia. a better category for MDMA is
| "empathogen/entactogen."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-30 23:01 UTC)