Thoughts on psychedelics and capitalism?

[BongQuixote]

How about the financial aspect, do you guys think it's a good investment at this point? I just did a search for psychedelic medicine companies, and was surprised to see how many there are, considering the legal status of psychedelics.

Personally I think it's a fine time if you have some money you're willing to put away for a long while. Stocks are coming out of an initial hype phase and seem a bit overvalued at the moment. That said, I don't see any way to go but up in the long run.

I don't see any big established pharma companies interested in providing psychedelic drugs to the public. Since the molecules and techniques are already known and in the public domain, there is no money to be made through copyrights, which is how drug companies make money. I don't think generic manufacturing of a niche product with a small market is the business they want to be in. Same with weed, that's why the drug companies are not all over it. There is no money to be made.

Yes, you are right, but "no money" is an overstatement. There is still very good potential for profit, I believe, ignoring the question of the morality of it. I also think big pharma companies would not want to compete with their own synthetic antidepressants and anxiolytics, contributing to their avoidance of psychedelics (hey, isn't that one theory as to why they were demonized in the first place?).
But just because Pfizer isn't about to start growing shrooms doesn't mean it's unprofitable. There are plenty of manufacturing methods to be patented, and research to be done, and expensive therapies to be devised, and liberal corporations to be charged for employee counselling

I agree. There is still a business model that makes sense, which I think would follow the weed model once compounds get legalized. Small outlets, maybe prescription only at first, warning labels, strict government quality control and safety checks, analysis of substance content and strength. No patents you need to license, just regular growers or labs doing their thing and selling directly through retail stores after inspection. This would allow mental health professional use in their practices and "self medication" for anyone interested. I've seen how the market changed in Seattle after the weed legalization and it's now:

1. Cheaper
2. Higher quality, guaranteed by the government to be free of pesticides and additives
3. Better selection, not only with strains but with type of products
4. No longer a social stigma

So I'm all for it. Legalize, tax and make it a safe market.

 

[dreamer042]

I agree. There is still a business model that makes sense, which I think would follow the weed model once compounds get legalized. Small outlets, maybe prescription only at first, warning labels, strict government quality control and safety checks, analysis of substance content and strength. No patents you need to license, just regular growers or labs doing their thing and selling directly through retail stores after inspection. This would allow mental health professional use in their practices and "self medication" for anyone interested. I've seen how the market changed in Seattle after the weed legalization and it's now:

1. Cheaper
2. Higher quality, guaranteed by the government to be free of pesticides and additives
3. Better selection, not only with strains but with type of products
4. No longer a social stigma

So I'm all for it. Legalize, tax and make it a safe market.

I don't think it's going to follow the model of cannabis where you can just head on down to the psychedelic shop and pick some up on a whim. I think the existing model we can look to is that of the ketamine clinics popping up everywhere. You will go take material in a clinical setting under the guidance of a couple licensed therapists and follow a specific course of treatment to address a specific medical issue for which the material has been approved.

My understanding is the end goal (at least for MAPS) is that eventually after enough in-clinic sessions, you may end up being able to get prescription to take it on your own, and ultimately this privilege would be allowed to "normal" healthy people to take it for personal growth and not just for the treatment of specific illnesses. This is of course all dependent on how well the initial clinical model plays out.

I think there is another side to all this in the decriminalize nature movement. Like with cannabis, it's really only a matter of time before we see all psychedelic plant medicines destigmatized and decriminalized. Again, I don't think you'll ever be able to just head on down to the shroom shop on the way home from work, but I do foresee a day when it's no longer a criminal offense to have a monotub in your bedroom, or to pop a few cubes on the dance floor.

This is of course, all just speculation, the future is unwritten. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

One thing is for sure though, psychedelics are here to stay. Get on the bus, it's gonna be a long strange trip. 8)

 

[Exitwound]

You will be able to freely buy it from your local grpwer who sells online and nobody will face criminal charhes for it.

 

[jamie]

For what it is worth dreamer, you already can head down to head shops for shrooms on your way home from work in Vancouver. It's been that way for a while.

It's a grey zone, but it is where cannabis was just a second ago.

Canada is different from the US. Here the weed got worse in quality and not cheaper with legalization and dispensaries look like apple stores with not much selection compared to pre legalization.

The older head shops downtown that had mimosa, rue, vine, kratom etc. Health Canada has made them go away. I miss Vancouver 2002.

 

[Spiralout]

How about the financial aspect, do you guys think it's a good investment at this point? I just did a search for psychedelic medicine companies, and was surprised to see how many there are, considering the legal status of psychedelics.

Personally I think it's a fine time if you have some money you're willing to put away for a long while. Stocks are coming out of an initial hype phase and seem a bit overvalued at the moment. That said, I don't see any way to go but up in the long run.

I don't see any big established pharma companies interested in providing psychedelic drugs to the public. Since the molecules and techniques are already known and in the public domain, there is no money to be made through copyrights, which is how drug companies make money. I don't think generic manufacturing of a niche product with a small market is the business they want to be in. Same with weed, that's why the drug companies are not all over it. There is no money to be made.

I disagree. I don't think the money is going to be made insofar as production is concerned; I think the real wealth is in the legally sanctioned, professionally facilitated, context that will be open for people looking to help heal their ailments, and eventually for more mundane reasons (we all have problems no matter what right). This legally sanctioned substance administration and trip facilitation should kill, at least, two birds with one stone: it will allow the substances to reach a far wider audience than it currently reaches, and will also allow for a much safer and hopefully productive setting. Of course I think people should be able to take these things on their own, in any setting that they want, but I think the personality type which would want to take them in a less structured environment is also likely to be the type that is willing to disregard the prohibition laws. Either way, the decriminalize nature movement is moving and the medical community is opening up to their own interpretation more.

Regardless of anyones possible scruples with our economic system, I think this is a good thing, and I think it will be profitable. The wealth is being created primarily in the ability to take these things in a safe environment conducive to working out great mental impediments some people may have. There is presently no way to do that; even for the people who are willing to disregard the laws. We can clearly see the pitfalls of going to these unauthorized shamans; this would be a great thing to attenuate. Obviously I'm not saying all shamans are bad, not at all, but even if you have a good shaman, they are not the same thing as a professional, medical setting, formally psychologically trained, setting. It's not a one size fits all type of deal, everyone needs something different, and having it open up to the public sounds like a great idea to me.

 

[Bill Cipher]

I don't think it's going to follow the model of cannabis where you can just head on down to the psychedelic shop and pick some up on a whim. I think the existing model we can look to is that of the ketamine clinics popping up everywhere. You will go take material in a clinical setting under the guidance of a couple licensed therapists and follow a specific course of treatment to address a specific medical issue for which the material has been approved.

I don't really want to weigh in on the larger question of psychedelics and capitalism, as the last time I did things devolved pretty quickly. But I will say that California just introduced a new bill last week that seeks to decriminalize ALL possession and personal use on a statewide level (meaning not just medical or therapeutic) of psilocybin, psilocyn, MDMA, LSD, ketamine, DMT, mescaline and ibogaine, as well as to expunge the criminal records for those already convicted of possession or use.

Who knows if it will make it on to the ballot or if people will actually vote for it, but I think it's progress and paves the way for positive change over time.

 

[BundleflowerPower]

I wouldn't mind making some money off the back of it either, I can't lie

Hopefully money’s growing on trees. I’m wit you

 

[dithyramb]

Critical interview on the subject

 

[murklan]

Critical interview on the subject

https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR2DSdfR8

Sorry, cant get the link to work...

 

[dithyramb]

Corrected.

 

[dragonrider]

The psychedelic experience is an incredibly precious gift to mankind. It is not up to anybody to say who should be allowed to undergo that experience and who shouldn't.

And that means that no one could object to psychedelic substances becoming available to the so-called "masses".

Who do you think you are if you think that YOU are allowed to take psychedelics, but not joe average? What makes you different? Why would someone else not feel the same way about you?
Who's joe average anyway? Who are these "masses", and what is the criterium for belonging to them?
Are we not the masses? Aren't we all joe average to everybody else?

What would be so bad about it, if psychedelic substances would become a mainstream enjoyment?
Would it take any of the magic away from the experience you are having?

I don't think so. How could it?
Wouldn't that be sort of the same thing as bigotted people saying that gay marriage takes something away from the traditional institute of marriage?
Maybe equally bigotted.

 

[downwardsfromzero]

Critical interview on the subject

[youtube]

Embedded for ease of access and removal of tracking gubbins.

 

[dithyramb]

Thank you, DFZ.

 

[downwardsfromzero]

Great video, dithyramb.
It effectively highlights the risks presented by popularising psychedelic therapeutics within a capitalistic paradigm.
That said, the risk of acculturation applies with casual use just as much.

Meanwhile, this site seems like a roundup of psychedelic capitalist ventures: Psychedelic Spotlight News

 

[dragonrider]

Great video, dithyramb.
It effectively highlights the risks presented by popularising psychedelic therapeutics within a capitalistic paradigm.
That said, the risk of acculturation applies with casual use just as much.

Meanwhile, this site seems like a roundup of psychedelic capitalist ventures: Psychedelic Spotlight News

Yeah, it is a very interesting talk.

I think though, that with non-therapeutic use, wich i would roughly guess is what over 90% of this site is focussed on, it is kind of your own responsibility what set and setting you create for yourself, what you get out of it, how you integrate the experience, and so on.

With sites like this, there is not realy an excuse anymore for not properly informing yourself on what chemicals you are putting in your body and what you do with it.
To yourself that is.

 

[downwardsfromzero]

I think though, that with non-therapeutic use, wich i would roughly guess is what over 90% of this site is focussed on, it is kind of your own responsibility what set and setting you create for yourself, what you get out of it, how you integrate the experience, and so on.

With sites like this, there is not realy an excuse anymore for not properly informing yourself on what chemicals you are putting in your body and what you do with it.
To yourself that is.

Well, yes. I was indirectly referring to my own uninformed used which (mostly) occurred well before the DMT nexus existed. We still can't guarantee that casual users will avail themselves of all the necessary information despite its ready availability. We were free to screw up back then - does the availability of information electronically remove that freedom today? To what degree are we obliged to engage with digital media - one of the keystones of modern capitalism - in order to prove ourselves worthy of the experience? How would that even remove the likelihood of poorly integrated peak experiences outlined in the video (from around 40:36 iirc)?

 

[dragonrider]

Well, the obligation is towards yourself. People are always free to waste their time on shallow experiences. Or their mind even.

There are always risks involved, but that doesn't have to be such a bad thing by itself.
That's how you learn.

I personally tend to believe that society is build on and driven by the willingness of young people to take stupid risks. Most nobleprizes in science are for the achievements of scientists in their late twenties or early thirties. When there is still a mild level of recklessness in their blood.

Risk is maybe a bit like the secrecy surrounding the kykeon brew and the eleusinian mysteries. It's part of that shroud of mystery. Part of what makes young people gravitate towards these things, part of that choice to go in or walk away.

 

[Ramma]

The psychedelic experience is an incredibly precious gift to mankind. It is not up to anybody to say who should be allowed to undergo that experience and who shouldn't.

I agree then again it remains that there are people who would do it and people who wouldnt. Most people wouldnt, because of the nature of psychedelics, and I think psychedelics will always be for a minority. It may seem to go mainstream at times, but in the larger schemes of things, i dont see the truth ever becoming a populat persuit

 

[dithyramb]

Psychedelics do not equal truth, though. Depending on usage, they can be at least as shallow or illusory as anything else.

 

[Ramma]

everything is illusory. Thats the truth.