The first realistic step toward making the legislation
concerning control and use of psychedelic chemicals based
primarily on light rather than heat is public education. Toward
this end I submitted to the Government this spring a request for
a PUBLIC hearing. The text of this request follows:
HEARING CLERK
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
ROOM 5440
330 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
LSD and the other psychedelic (mind-manifesting) chemicals
represent a new fact for our society. These chemicals, the most
powerful mind-altering substances known to man, are presently
being researched for their therapeutic potential with alcoholics,
drug addicts, autistic children, psychoneurotics, and prisoners,
as well as for their potential to increase man's creativity in
problem-solving and their value to the military. Significant
research has also demonstrated that these chemicals are capable
of altering the perception of terminal cancer patients in such a
way as to alleviate their fear of dying. The Native American
Church continues to use peyote as a medicine in its religious
ceremonies.
In addition to these "authorized" uses of
psychedelic chemicals, there is, as a result of increased
restriction on who is considered a "qualified
researcher" with psychedelics, a significant increase in
"private research," i.e., research not authorized by
the U.S. Government. The data from a variety of public and
private sources indicate that this extralegal activity is not
limited to any specific segment of society. Among these private
explorers are numbered religious leaders of all faiths,
scientists in both the natural and social sciences, medical men
specializing in general practice as well as psychiatry; writers,
artists, performers, musicians, educators, students, journalists,
psychic researchers, businessmen, housewives, mystics,
philosophers, lawyers, socialites, engineers, and
"beatniks."
When these chemicals have been ingested with suitable
preparation and in a supportive setting, by far the majority of
these psychedelic researchers have reported that their
experiences with the chemicals have enriched their life
experience, helped them to feel a greater sense of satisfaction.
For some of these people the experience has provided this
increased satisfaction spiritually, for others through helping
their marriages to achieve new depth and meaning, for others in
their professions, and for the majority through their ability to
experience each day more fully with a sense of increased
awareness.
There is at the present time no statistical evidence that
psychedelic chemicals are either dangerous or physically
addictive. In terms of suicides and psychosis, psychedelics used
in currently recommended dosages are considerably safer than, for
example, a four-year liberal arts education As far as
psychological risk (post-experience depressions, etc.) is
concerned, most of this can be prevented by education and
preparation of the researcher as well as design of the setting.
At present in our society there is no existing social
institution which provides a citizen with the opportunity to
utilize psychedelic chemicals to explore his own brain or
consciousness in order to increase his awareness should he so
desire, be it for spiritual, educational, therapeutic, or
esthetic reasons. The potential for mankind in these chemicals
cannot be realized under existing governmental policies. Thus the
presence of the psychedelic chemicals as well as the growing
public interest in serious exploration with them poses a real
need for CREATIVE LEGISLATION. It is to be hoped that our vision
and our commitment to growth of the individual and the society
will prevent us from legislating out of existence one of man's
greatest chances to expand the boundaries of his mind, his
individuality, and his culture.
Lyndon Johnson speaks of "The Great Society." It is
interesting to speculate whether such a society as he envisions
has a place for a genuinely new institution which could
significantly alter the institutions of the society itself.
Since 1963 many of us who are deeply concerned about the
welfare of mankind have attempted to interest the Government in a
genuinely open-minded search for a constructive program regarding
who should use and who should control psychedelics. We have
suggested that Government-controlled privately supported centers
be created under limited licensing (a policy presently used with
radioisotopes) which would provide a suitable setting and
assistance for any responsible member of our society to carry on
explorations of his own consciousness with psychedelics for
whatever purpose he chose. Not only has the Government failed to
seriously consider this proposal, but every indication is that
the restrictions are mounting, and the Government is attempting
to ignore the uniqueness of the situation by treating psychedelic
chemicals as similar to other drugs.
It will become increasingly difficult with the implementation
of new and more stringent restrictions for free and open research
to proceed with these chemicals in the United States. According
to the new Drug Abuse Control Amendment, an individual can
possess psychedelics for the use of himself or a member of his
household but cannot legally purchase or receive the chemical.
The results of such control without simultaneously making
provisions for the opportunity for responsible citizens to
research their own consciousness legally will be predominantly
unfortunate, leading to, for example: (1) an increase in the
manufacture of homemade psychedelic chemicals having little or no
quality control; (2) an increase in the paranoia connected with
psychedelic chemical usage which in turn will increase the danger
of negative psychological reactions to the experience; (3) an
increase in the number of responsible and useful citizens who,
because of their deep conviction about the value of psychedelic
research, will continue such research and thus become criminals
in the eyes of law; (4) an attempt by the Government to enforce
an obviously unenforceable law because of the numbers of citizens
involved, thus re-creating the effects of prohibition, during
which time the Government enforcement agencies lost respect in
the eyes of the populace; and (5) a possibility of losing what
might be a key for man to free himself of the limitation of his
own present vision which has caught him so deeply in alienation
and paranoia, be it at the personal or national level.
It is in view of the situation as outlined above that we
hereby request that the Commissioner of the Food and Drug
Administration hold public hearings concerning the inclusion of
psychedelic chemicals as listed in the Federal Register, January
18, 1966, under the Drug Abuse Control Amendment. We further
request that these hearings be addressed to the following
questions:
1. Does the inclusion of psychedelic chemicals under the Drug
Abuse Control Amendment unnecessarily curtail an individual's
rights provided by the First Amendment of the Constitution?
Specifically we wish to explore the implications of this Act for
religious freedom.
2. Is there indeed sufficient evidence to warrant Government
control of psychedelics on the basis of real danger to the public
safety?
3. What is a "qualified research investigator" in
the field of psychedelic chemicals?
4. Are medical practitioners, in view of the nature of their
training, suitable supervisors for the administration of
psychedelic chemicals?
5. Were the Commissioner to bring a chemical under the
control of his department based on a categorization of the
chemical as producing "ecstasy" or "impairment of
acquired social and cultural customs," (Federal Register,
December 18, 1965), would he not be setting a dangerous precedent
concerning ideas and experiences which could significantly
contribute to the growth of the society?
6. Has the Commissioner heard sufficient testimony concerning
the sociological, psychological, educational, philosophical, and
spiritual implications of controlling psychedelics to determine
his decision to include these chemicals within the Act, on a
sufficiently broad cultural basis?
7. Does one have the right to decide for himself whether he
wants to explore his own consciousness or change the nature of
his own consciousness?
8. If, with the knowledge that the ingestion of psychedelic
chemicals by some people leads to negative reactions, an
individual chooses to ingest a psychedelic agent in order to
explore his own consciousness, does the Federal Government have
the right to interfere with such a person who is willing to
assume the risk? Is the Government by so doing assuming the right
to protect an individual from himself?
9. Does the Food and Drug Administration have the right to
initiate punitive action in connection with psychedelic chemicals
where the individual has not harmed himself or society? Does the
Food and Drug Administration have the right to impose punishment
for effects of altered consciousness, or is the criminal law and
punishment only reserved for actual wrongdoing and harm to
society?
10. Does the end justify the means? Can enforcement of the
Food and Drug Administration law under consideration occur
without gross invasion of the right of privacy? How will a
violation come to the attention of the Food and Drug
Administration? Will the willing possessor of psychedelic
chemicals report a violation of this law?
11. Is it desirable for a law to be enacted that creates an
estimated 100,000 to one million criminals?
12. Will the Food and Drug Administration be brought to the
same level of respect as the Prohibition Unit of the Federal
Government during the Prohibition era? Will the promises offered
by the Prohibition Unit that "if we can have stiffer
penalties and more Prohibition Agents, alcohol will be stamped
out" be offered by the Food and Drug Administration when it
finds itself unable to "stamp out" the prohibited
substance? If the Prohibition Unit failed in enforcement of the
Volstead Act and the Eighteenth Amendment despite every effort,
will not this similarly unenforceable and corruption-breeding
Food and Drug Administration law meet with a similar fate?
13. Finally, we request that the hearing be addressed to the
matter of inclusion of another "drug" as fulfilling the
criteria for inclusion as "hallucinogen" (Federal
Register, December 18, 1965) under the Drug Abuse Control
Amendment. This drug is commonly referred to as
"alcohol." We wish the Food and Drug Administration to
justify how it can impose controls upon psychedelic chemicals
because of "dangers" and "abuse" in view of
the comparative statistics concerning the "dangers" and
"abuse" attendant to the use of alcohol.
RICHARD ALPERT, Ph.D. 1965
From: LSD, Richard Alpert and Sidney Cohen, The New
American Library, Copyright 1966
