A historical overview of psychedelia & evaluation of its potential uses, risks, and benefits
Should we expand the use of psychedelic drugs? Or should we continue to restrict their use? Do the benefits of outweigh the risks involved in their use? How dangerous is LSD? I interviewed Dr. Richard Strassman and Ken Babbs – two of the world’s leading psychedelic pioneers, in their own regards – to answer these questions. Strassman and Babbs provide different yet important perspectives. I wanted to unpack the mystery and intrigue surrounding psychedelic drugs, and perhaps more importantly, discover for myself whether or not these dangerous connotations held true with the experts.
I interviewed Dr. Strassman remotely, through email. Dr. Strassman is a leading researcher in the field of psychedelics, paving the way for studies involving psychedelics, particularly DMT, in the use of psychotherapy and integrative medicine. Dr. Strassman has a Biology degree from Stanford as well as a Doctorate in Medicine from Yeshiva University. He has worked as a psychiatrist for many years and has received numerous research grants. He has published over forty-one peer-reviewed articles and written four books. [4] To say he is qualified in the subject of psychedelics is an understatement.
Ken Babbs is a central figure in the psychedelic revolution that began in the late 1950s. He is a certified Merry Prankster and novelist – he was on the original famed cross country bus trip with Ken Kesey (author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, 1962) that has become hallmark of the psychedelic era. The psychedelic movement both cascaded into and coincided with the Civil Rights, Peace, and Hippie Movements that followed.
Lysergic acid diethylamide, or “LSD”, was first discovered in 1943, when Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann accidentally synthesized and ingested it. [2] In the years following its discovery, LSD and other psychedelic drugs were mainly utilized in the psychiatric profession as psychometrics. They produced psychiatric states presenting similarly to those of psychiatric disorders, so researchers administered these drugs to participants for the purpose of studying disordered states. It was not yet known that these drugs were producing altered states of consciousness. In the 1950s, Dr. Sidney Cohen personally took LSD and experienced its meditative benefits. The rhetoric surrounding psychedelics in the psychiatric community significantly shifted from being detrimental to something with therapeutic potential. [5]
By this time, roots of the hippie counterculture movement were already taking hold. Young adults and liberal intellectuals who would eventually become known as “hippies,” began to use psychedelics in creative endeavors. In 1956, Dr. Cohen began to implement psychedelics in psychotherapy used to treat depression and alcohol dependence. [2] LSD was even informally endorsed by the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous for its potential in combatting addiction.
It was around this time, that Ken Babbs met Ken Kesey – and was first introduced to LSD. Both Babbs and Kesey were students in the Stanford graduate writing program and met at a cocktail party held by a professor before the start of the term.
“We hit it off right away. We had the same kind of temperaments. We were both imaginative, and both outgoing, and both athletic. We just really meshed,” Babbs says.
In 1961, Kesey was working in the VA Hospital where they were conducting experiments on psychedelic drugs. “They went in and they would give him certain things… sometimes it would be a placebo, and then other times it would be different. Then, there was one drug that was just really a knockout,” Ken Babbs says.”
At the time, there were no laws against psychedelic drugs. Kesey – being the Prankster he was, sought out to obtain some LSD of his own. “He went into the office where that guy was running the show at night, when nobody was there. And he opened a drawer, and found a bottle of Sandoz lab from Switzerland, pure LSD tabs.” Kesey took the LSD and ran – he brought it back to his house on Perry Lane in Palo Alto. “That’s where people started drinking wine and playing banjos and getting high on LSD.” That was my first experience,” says Babbs.
Meanwhile, on the East Coast, two psychology professors at Harvard were using LSD for psychological studies on graduate students. A few years later, Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert and were fired for these experiments but soon became leaders of the psychedelic movement. LSD was gaining popularity. By 1960, psychedelics were flowing through subcurrents – tributaries, waiting to permeate the river of mainstream American consciousness.
“When LSD hit the West Coast, it was like a big tsunami came roaring in and everybody was high,” says Ken Babbs. “As Kesey said, ‘It hit everything. It hit the trees, the bushes, the animals. And the people, and the world, was getting psychedelisized.’”
But in 1962, Dr. Sidney Cohen, the same scientist who presented the world with a beneficial view of psychedelics, turned his back on LSD. He publicly stated his weariness of potential abuse of the drug. He worried about the impurities that can arise in street drugs and proposed that the unsupervised use of LSD was dangerous. Some believe that this claim led to the subsequently passed regulations placed to “crackdown” on psychedelics. [5] And in 1968, LSD was criminalized in America, through the help of Nixon’s ‘War on Drugs.’
But many speculate that these laws were not enacted for the purpose of medical safety, but rather for political and social motives. Many believe that the criminalization of LSD was part of an effort to marginalize and discriminate against the Hippies, in order to quell the anti-war movement.
“LSD was criminalized,” says Ken Babbs. “It was thrown in with the rest of those drugs – like heroin and methedrine, so it was kind of demonized for a while.”
“The war on Drugs was lost before it began, because it was all based on a lie,” says Mumia Abu-Jamal in Turning the Tide. John Ehrlichman, a Nixon White House aide, opened up about the ‘War On Drugs’ in a 1994 interview with Harper’s Magazine, admitting that the so-called ‘War’ was actually an effort to “attack” the enemies of the Nixon campaign. [6] “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” Ehrlichman says.
“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news,” Ehrlichman said. “Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” [7]
Abu-Jamal eloquently expresses the marginalization that the ‘War on Drugs’ has exhibited. “For, the wretched ‘war on drugs’, really a war on the poor, the Black, the radical, the hip, has devastated whole communities, created the Leviathan of the world’s largest prison system, and cast countless souls into the hatred-infested holes and netherworlds of prison, probation and death.” [6]
The media purposefully portrayed the Hippies as dirty, classless, barefooted drug addicts on the fringes of society, posing a threat to the morals of an upstanding country. Drugs were used as a catalyst to wage war against “unconventionality, sexual liberation, and constructive dissent.”[2] Discrimination can be seen in exemplary billboards which displayed, “Keep America Clean: Take a Bath,” “Hippies not served here,” or “Get a Haircut.” Police sweeps enacted violence and brutality against Hippies in San Francisco streets in 1968. [2],[8] “It wasn’t about drugs. It never was. It was about Politics,” Abu-Jamal says. [6]
The growth of psychedelic research was significantly stunted due to its stigmatization in the sixties. Scientists have a good idea of how psychedelics affect the brain as a physical system, but there is much more research to be done. Dr. Robin Carhart postulates that psychedelics work by affecting the brain at three different levels. The first is the brain receptor level. LSD, for example, works as a serotonin 2A receptor agonist, meaning it binds to receptors and causes an action. Psychedelics also act on the functional level, in which they increase the brain’s plasticity; and the dynamic level, in which the brain entropy or complexity is increased. Ultimately, psychedelics are thought to cause downstream effects that can lead to a heightened sense of relaxation which can result in spiritual or mystical experiences. [1]
Such an effect is described by Dr. Strassman as “the production of a very intense psychedelic or peak experience which sets into motion a series of downstream effects resulting in the desired outcome.” “Some have likened this to a mystical experience,” Strassman says, and “others to bottoming out as in delirium tremens.”
Dr. Strassman sees psychedelics as “super placebos.” “They reinforce more or less conscious pre-existing beliefs, aspirations, goals, and so on,” he says. “Look at Charles Manson. He used LSD in shaping his followers from being halfhearted psychopaths to fully committed ones. I think the psychedelic subculture should be careful, both research and non-research, in overextending, overreaching. Psychologists are not theologians, psychiatrists are not ministers. When people start making claims about areas in which they are not qualified to do so, there’s backlash. So, talking about “God” as a psychologist will be criticized by those with authority in the field.”
So what benefits can psychedelics provide? For Ken Babbs, they were very influential. “Before I had LSD, I was kind of a frat rat, know-it-all. But when I took LSD, it wised me up and maybe I saw, under the influence of LSD, the beautiful, the good stuff. And also, the bad stuff. And saw a chance to make the decision to go with the good stuff. It influenced me to do that and I became a much better person.”
“It opens all kinds of doors,” Babbs says. “LSD is a wonderful drug. When you’re high on LSD, you’re roaming though the cosmos, you’re back in time having fights with dragons with your sword, and you’re having huge parties with people. I mean, you’re going everywhere. And you can also use it to explore you’re own body – it allows you to go down and in, and investigate all parts of your body. Sometimes, if you’re really lucky, you can leave your body and roam around.”
Babbs described a particularly exemplary experience with LSD after back surgery. “All night long, I went down to the spot where the operation had taken place, and I put everything back together the way it’s supposed to be, and the next morning I got up and got out of bed and walked out of the hospital. They were screaming to me that I couldn’t do that. I said ‘I’m fine, and I went home.’”
“Now, they’re exploring [LSD] along with psilocybin mushrooms as beneficial for people in certain ways. They’re exploring that,” Babbs says. “I think it’s a good idea because it could be used in therapy. But you know, there’s always the problem – with all those drugs – that if people that do too much of it, it’s not good for them.”
Psychedelics have had such a positive impact on Babbs. Is there a way in which these drugs could do for others what they did for him? Could psychedelics be seriously considered and utilized in the medical setting despite their stigmatization? Psychedelics haven’t been widely used in psychiatry since they were criminalized in the 1960s. And the potential risks and rewards associated with using these drugs must be critically analyzed before being implemented in a clinical setting. But a “psychedelic renaissance” is taking place, as researchers are reevaluating the value of these drugs in psychiatry.
An argument commonly made against the use of psychedelics is one claiming their lack of medical or societal use. Research conducted on psychedelics before their criminalization provides an existing framework for their possible medicinal values. As research continues amidst the “psychedelic renaissance,” newer applications are being evaluated.
Rick Strassman speaks about the potential applications of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy used for disorders including obsessive-compulsive disorder, alcohol or tobacco dependence, depression and end-of-life issues – he says that “the list continues to grow.”
There seem to be two ways which psychedelic therapies work, according to Strassman’s research. “One is the production of a very intense psychedelic or peak experience which sets into motion a series of downstream effects resulting in the desired outcome. Some have likened this to a mystical experience, others to bottoming out as in delirium tremens. The other method is lower dose treatment which more clearly enhances the beneficial effects of more traditional therapies, while being used in the context of those traditional therapies—talk therapy for example.”
That is not to say that integrating psychedelics into practical psychotherapy doesn’t have its potential risks to consider. “The risks are primarily psychological and must be addressed by careful screening, supervision of drug sessions, and post-session integration. Some people have flashbacks, some develop psychosis, anxiety, depression. There was a suicide at Hopkins in the terminally ill patient study because the patient got a low dose of drug and didn’t attain the experience everyone told her would be healing and curative. While this may not have been a drug side effect, it can be interpreted as a side effect of the model. Another reason why we must remain open-minded regarding how psychedelics cure,” says Dr. Strassman.
We cannot underplay the possibility for risk in the realm of psychedelics. Ken Babbs cautions of the wide range of reactions elicited from these drugs. He also emphasizes the necessity of preparing for the experience. “We called ourselves ‘astronauts of interspace,’” he says. “We had to be as set, mentally, physically, and morally as the astronauts did when they went up into space, to be able to come back and be able to resume our regular lives – and not be left out there in some weird place.”
“People have been drinking [alcohol] since the beginning of time. it can be fun but also too much of it can be bad. I think the sort of thing is true of all drugs. You got to know when to use them and when not to use them,” Babbs says. “We had good launching pads and when we left, we had good places to come back to.” “Now I’m not sure that everybody can do that.” “People that are maybe a little edgy anyways, mentally – who knows what it’ll be like for them?”
Many claim that “LSD is a dangerous drug.” But exactly how dangerous is it? It is difficult to encounter unbiased evaluations because the reality is that these claims are often confounded with stigmas and subliminal stigmas, partially as a result of the ‘War Against Drugs’. There are still many stigmas surrounding psychedelic drugs.
“There is an inverse square law which states that the degree of hostile criticism varies inversely with the square of the distance from any first-hand experience and knowledge of the drug,” as Hoffer and Osmond state in a paper published in 1969. [3]
US law currently classifies LSD, peyote, and other psychedelics along with heroin, as Schedule I substances. According to the DEA, “The abuse rate is a determinate factor in the scheduling of the drug; for example, Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and the potential to create severe psychological and/or physical dependence.” [9]
This classification is direct downstream effect of the ‘War on Drugs’, as it is grounded more in stigma than in fact. Let’s examine the criteria used to make this judgment: high potential for abuse and potential to create severe physiological and/or physical dependence. According to researcher David E. Nichols, psychedelics “are generally considered physiologically safe and do not lead to dependence or addiction.” Psychedelic drugs have, on the contrary, shown potential to aid in combatting addiction to substances. Pilot studies have shown psilocybin-assisted therapy to be effective in treatment of alcohol and nicotine abuse. [10]
“Physiologically, psychedelics are safe. The only exception might be the parenterally active tryptamines which raise blood pressure and heart rate, and which should be avoided by people with cerebrovascular or cardiovascular disease, epilepsy—common sense kinds of contraindications,” Dr. Strassman says.
It is quite unusual for an illicit drug to have an existing abundance of literature supporting its safety, which is the case for psychedelics. In a 1969 publication, Hoffer and Osmond quite frankly object to the dangers of LSD.
“Is LSD a dangerous drug? Of course it is. So is salt, sugar, water, and even air. There is no chemical which is wholly safe nor any human activity which is completely free of risk. The degree of toxicity or danger associated with any activity depends on its use. Just as a scalpel may be used to cure, it may also kill. Yet we hear no strong condemnatory statements against scalpels, etc. When LSD is used as treatment by competent physicians who are trained in its use it is no more dangerous than psychotherapy. It certainly is less dangerous than ECT insulin subcoma, and the use of tranquilizers and antidepression compounds. Statements that LSD is dangerous really are meaningless as they stand. Every clinician working with LSD who has published his data uniformly agrees it must be used by physicians with proper safeguards for the safety of the patient. There are no known physical contraindications.” [3]
It must also be noted that LSD had been integral to the scientific discovery the structure of serotonin in 1953. The tryptamine moiety in LSD was also found in serotonin. It is not well known that the biomolecule serotonin was discovered approximately ten years after the discovery of LSD. This important discovery was hedged by the research of psychedelics. [10]
There are still several barriers to break and stigmas to be overcome in psychedelic research. There will always be dissenting opinions regarding its use; and this, according to Ken Babbs, is simply the way of everything in life. “People are scared of something that they don’t know anything about, and you know, just the fact that it’s a drug gives it a bad connotation to a lot of people,” he says. “But, that’s the way of life, you know. A certain class of people doesn’t want other people doing certain things. But you know, its always been like that. It’s one of the nice things about society. There are so many different attitudes… so you just got to work your way through all that and not let it hang you up.”
While some psychedelics have been cleared for research, we are a long way before psychedelics will be legalized for wider public use. “The move to decriminalize psychedelics will also create a backlash. This move to decriminalize is heavily dependent on the promising results coming out of laboratory research on beneficial effects. As more people take psychedelics, more adverse effects will be reported—suicides, crazy behavior, psychosis, flashbacks, and the like. We need to be ready for this,” Dr. Strassman says. “Downplaying the adverse effects is a recipe for problems; that is, the media and larger public will say, ‘Why didn’t you tell us about this?’ If we can get ahead of the adverse effects issues before it’s even a problem, we will be in a lot better position to deal with these types of reports.”
History has proven that perhaps the most influential breakthrough discoveries were achieved by thinking outside the box and breaking from mainstream processes. As Hoffer and Osmond wrote in 1969, “To the extent to which discovery changes our interpretive framework, it is logically impossible to arrive at it by the continued application of our previous interpretative framework. In other words, discovery is creative also in the sense that it is not to be achieved by the diligent application of any previously known and specifiable procedure. Its production requires originality.” [3]
Moving forward with psychedelics, but with a healthy skepticism and caution – seems to be the consensus of the experts. “One of the reasons this field was shut down in the late 60s and early 70s was because of the zealotry of its advocates. They thought they had found the silver bullet and stopped looking at mechanisms. Instead, they just applied it to everything that they could see, in kind of a religious fervor. Like “prayer heals everything.” In addition, we don’t need any Pied Pipers, un-educated and un-trained individuals promoting psychedelic drug use as a panacea—that is bound to create backlash, even more so than is natural when any revolutionary treatment develops.”
“Oh yeah, well, life is a groove, and you have to find the groove.”
Works Cited
[1] Carhart-Harris, Robin L How Do Psychedelics Work?, Current Opinion in Psychiatry: January 2019 – Volume 32 – Issue 1 – p 16-21 doi: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000467
[2] DiPaolo, M. (2018). LSD and The Hippies: A Focused Analysis of Criminalization and Persecution In The Sixties. Retrieved June 4, 2020, from http://pitjournal.unc.edu/content/lsd-and-hippies-focused-analysis-criminalization-and-persecution-sixties
[3] Hoffer, A., & Osmond, H. (n.d.). Criticisms of LSD Therapy and Rebuttal. Retrieved June 4, 2020, from http://www.psychedelic-library.org/lsd1.htm
[4] CV. (2019, July 13). Retrieved June 06, 2020, from https://www.rickstrassman.com/cv/
[5] Novak S. J. (1997). LSD before Leary. Sidney Cohen’s critique of 1950s psychedelic drug research. Isis; an international review devoted to the history of science and its cultural influences, 88(1), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1086/383628
[6] Abu-Jamal, M. (2016). Ehrlichman: ‘WAR ON DRUGS REALLY ‘BOUT BLACKS & HIPPIES’. Turning the Tide, 28(7), 2. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dartmouth.idm.oclc.org/docview/1787805206?accountid=10422
[7] Baum, D., Kroll-Zaidi, R., Jr., R., & Indiana, G. (2016, March 31). [Report]: Legalize It All, by Dan Baum. Retrieved June 06, 2020, from https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
[8] Friedenberg, E. Z. (1971). The anti-American generation. Chicago: Distributed by Aldine Pub.
[9] Drug Scheduling. (n.d.). Retrieved June 06, 2020, from http://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling
[10] Nichols D. E. (2016). Psychedelics. Pharmacological reviews, 68(2), 264–355. https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.115.011478