The Drug Update

The possibilities for the medical community abound but the problems of misuse remain.

I thought there was no commentary on this blog. Because the linked article doesn't mention anything about "misuse".

"But LSD soon became the drug of choice for hippies and those involved in the 60s counter-culture, and was outlawed."

This was interpreted as misuse of hallucinogenic drugs. The article was making a comparison between the 1960's and the present, and so this seemed like a logical connection and in the spirit of the article. This may not have been clear enough logic for you, and I apologize for that.

The article was making a comparison between the 1960's and the present, and so this seemed like a logical connection and in the spirit of the article.

It did not say why it was primarily banned: sociopolitical currents or health concerns, although the text hints at the former. More importantly, it did not comment on the current difficulties of legitimizing psychedelics for therapeutic purposes, only that the publicity of a LSD study would evoke sharp negative reactions.

The effect of clinical use on non-medical use isn't brought up, but that's what your contribution refers to.

"There were terrible mistakes, terrible lapses in judgement of individuals doing treatment," admits Professor Grob. "But I think we're seeing more serious, sober, scientific medical investigators getting interested in this area. There's a growing recognition that a psychedelic experience can have a therapeutic profile which might be extraordinary particularly in patient populations that do not respond well to conventional treatments."

Thank you for you active interest in our website, and I wish I had the time to spend as much time on your site. Sadly, I barely have time to post here.
On to your comment, the quotation above I believe clearly explains the closing sentence of my post. The misuse of psychedelic drugs occurred in the medical arena, and this could happen again due to the nature of research (mistakes happen). The original post merely stated that the possibility of misuse remained (did not specify in what area), and I continue to stand by that statement as fact. If you believe that there is no possibility of misuse, then we will have to agree to disagree, but I would have to recommend some books on probability. Lastly, you correctly state that the effect of clinical use on non-medical use isn't brought up, but I will try to make that connection for you. Prescription drugs that are fun to take (like hallucinogenic drugs) tend to be abused. Whether it is medical marijuana, valium, vicodin, or psilocybin the possibility of abuse increases when the drugs are produced, and these drugs would not be produced (at least by legitimate businesses) if the medical community was not prescribing it. This was not stated in the article, but I continue to believe that this was in the subtext. If you still feel that the line in the original post can only be seen as commentary, then I apologize.

The misuse of psychedelic drugs occurred in the medical arena, and this could happen again due to the nature of research (mistakes happen).

This is where our confusion lies. In the illicit drugs literature, "misuse" is a synonym for "abuse", both of which mean "unapproved use". In the US, 'abuse' is the standard term; in UK, 'misuse'. Both these terms are social value judgementt i.e. drinking couple bottles of beer isn't referred to as "misuse" or "abuse", but smoking a joint, or taking a pill of E is. That's how I interpreted your statement.

As an aside, your recommendation of a probability book wouldn't be relevant since probability is just a set of mathematical tools, applied upon a dataset. The "possibility of misuse" (in your sense) is a matter of observation.