Cannabis and Schizophrenia: Drug Controversy

I've given conflicting messages on this blog, and I'd now like to sort them out.


In one post I say that psychoactive drugs can be used responsibly in some conditions, and are beneficial to humanity under those conditions. In another post I write that psychoactive drugs can cause insanity (as they certainly did in me).

That psychoactive drugs can cause insanity is a medical fact. Another fact is that this is not the cause for everyone, but for those with a history of mental illness in themselves or their family, and those with a genetic predisposition to insanity - others may not have problems with their sanity and go on to give the taking of psychoactive drugs its reputation for being a worthwhile pursuit. But even those who remain mostly sane can suffer from addiction, and all manner of side effects such as poverty and criminality and social rejection and even death.
So there are two things being said there - that psychoactive drugs can A) cause insanity, but B) not in everyone. But I'm not a doctor. All I know is what I've read and what happened to me. However, if I had a child who wished to take psychoactive drugs, and I couldn't stop them from doing so, I'd wish them to be careful.


South Carolina, Switzerland and Israel are currently experimenting with psychedelics... see the bottom section of the Wikipedia page on psychedelic therapy . It may be that this becomes a mainstream way of helping people cope with death, trauma and other serious aspects of the human condition. I don't know much about these experiments, but presume that low doses are being used to avoid causing mental illness. Lets not forget that medicinal use of cannabis to relieve pain is permitted in parts of the world (I just wonder how those users cope with the health risk - and then how governments cope with the risk of being sued for damages by those who become permanently and incurably insane from using prescription medicines).

One factor that emerged from psychedelic research was that set and setting are important. This amounts to being careful what circumstances you take a drug in and how you are mentally prepared for the occasion. The theory is that correct set and setting will minimise the danger of adverse psychological reactions to a drug. So if that dear loved one of mine were wishing to find out what a psychoactive drug is like, and I couldn't stop them, I'd wish for them to take care of the set and setting of use.

Many psychoactive drugs have a history of indigenous use around the world, but we don't know much about their health - presumably those many cultures believed the benefits to outweigh the risks.

I believe that the correct set and setting would emphasise the aesthetic whilst reducing stressors, including the subject engaging only with people they wholly and habitually trust.


I'll say again, this discussion should not be thrown away on the grounds of it being controversial, it should not be condemned but approached with an open mind: limited legality of psychedelic drugs may become a fact of life, to treat serious medical conditions. Like morphine versus heroin, there may be permitted use of psychedelics while a street culture of use continues. Perhaps psychedelic therapy will lead to an understanding
that asylums for the mentally ill should likewise have the optimum set and setting, - emphasising the aesthetic while limiting stressors within a social situation of pure kindness and trust.

This does not come down to a pro- or anti-drug stance on my behalf. I've said before that our maturity in handling psychedelics is variable, as a species. Secondly misuse of psychedelics is extremely costly, both to the self and the society that cares for the self. But is there a place for psychoactive drugs in society? We will see.