Discussion of Schedule I Drugs

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 the use of these drugs in research. 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 suffering for millions of patients in a real way. Therefore, while it is easy to see why someone might feel that a deontological approach is justified in this situation, I personally believe that a more comprehensive perspective is needed.

3. Some argue that experimenting with Schedule I drugs for therapeutic purposes normalize their usage. Is this a good thing? Give a good Rawlsian argument that justifies your opinion.

A Rawlsian argument could be applied in many different ways depending on the assumptions made in this situation. Rawls made the argument for the mask of invisibility which roughly proposed that you should design and society and its systems so that it is fair for all members regardless of their position in society. While it is easy for some to be critical of others using hard drugs for medical purposes, if you fully empathize with the patient and understand that these substances could reduce or mitigate their pain and suffering, then I think people would be much more sympathetic to their usage.

However, the argument that schedule I drugs being used would normalize their usage or make them more available to the public by breaking certain stigmas, is an entirely different argument. From a Rawlsian perspective one might argue that these drugs have negative consequence for recreational use and thus the individuals within the society should be protected from them. The assumption would have to be that use as a recreational substance of schedule I drugs is inherently bad and would make the individual worse off. However, I do not believe this is entirely clear. For example, the argument could be made that that substances such as psilocybin are far less harmful than other schedule one drugs that are used such as methamphetamines, heroine, or other potentially deadly drugs. Therefore, if a person is going to use a hard drug recreationally, then something like psilocybin would represent a much safer option than many of the alternatives. Thus from a Rawlsian perspective, the case could also be made that people psilocybin being normalized could have many benefits for society.

4. The United States health care system frankly does a horrible job at preparing people to die. Should it use psilocybin therapy as a standard practice for terminally ill patients? Give me a robust feminist ethical defense of your opinion.