Medical Benefits of Psychedelics
Presently, anxiety is pharmaceutically treated with Xanax, Lorazepam, Diazepam, etc., all of which are Schedule IV drugs, and they don't seem to work as well as psilocybin. What is the U.S. government's ethical argument against using Schedule I drugs for medical purposes? Develop it in detail. Be sure to include any other references you have found in your research.
Drugs, substances, and certain chemicals used to make drugs are classified into five (5) distinct categories or schedules depending upon the drug's acceptable medical use and the drug's abuse or dependency potential; schedule I drugs are considered to have a high potential of abuse, coupled with a high rate of abuse for either physical or psychological dependence developing with their use (DEA, N.d.). The government argues that these drugs cannot be used ethically because they have little or no medical uses and the risks associated with these drugs greatly outweighs any potential benefits that might be present.
Yet, at the same time, the classification of drugs seems to be largely a political decision as much, or more, than it is based on a purely scientific assessment. Fifty years ago, recreational use of drugs like psilocybin was popularly used in many countries and governments largely disapproved of this development. The decision for the classification for this type of drug at the time seemed to be more of a social engineering experiment or a means to social control than based on a scientific consensus. By the mid-nineteen-sixties, LSD had escaped from the laboratory and swept through the counterculture. In 1970, Richard Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act and put most psychedelics on Schedule 1, prohibiting their use for any purpose (Pollan, 2015).
Despite the fact that these substances are becoming more accepted in the medical and psychiatry communities, there still seems to be a stigma that looms about...
In learning lessons from the 1950s and 1960s, researchers in general remain cautious about the potential for psychedelics and how they are investigated (Morris, 2008). Organizations such as the FDA and the DEA seem to still hesitant to approve use.
2. Society doesn't like to deal with 'hard' drugs, even for medical purposes, because it would be a reflection on our national character. We would be seen as weak, dependent, and lacking strength. Assess this virtuous argument. Is it indeed virtuous? Use the language of VE to argue your claim.
In any society, the leaders and the system of organization reflect the entire population. It is reasonable to suspect that many people in leadership positions wish to protect others and institute their own opinions on some matters without necessarily considering the evidence or possible outcomes of their decisions. Deontological theories and ethical principles are by definition duty based and from this perspective, the ethical behavior or the fulfillment of moral obligations is dependent upon the individual's duties. Some might feel that the use of hard drugs for any purpose is unethical and crosses ethical lines. Furthermore, these duties, or virtue ethics, are grounded in intentions as opposed to specific outcomes; it judges morality by examining the nature of actions and the will of agents rather than goals achieved.
From a virtue ethics perspective, it is reasonable to understand why someone might think the decision to ban hard drugs might be justified. However, no ethical theory should be considered in isolation or used across the board. There are many more factors that should influence the decision other than simply duty. While this approach might be best suited for many situations, it should not dictate matters of health and research into new health practices. The use of some hard drugs have the potential to eliminate pain and…
