It does seem rather pointless to restrict the availability of dangerous drugs to terminal patients, who may not survive their side effects.

The New York Times Magazine today has a lengthy article on whether ecstasy, reputedly a mind-altering drug, can help those suffering from cancer or post-traumatic stress disorder. We wrote about the new studies into the subject that the FDA has authorized here and here.

Consumers and labor have a great deal of power; labor can organize and consumers can boycott or simply not consume.

However, assuming they lied intentionally; how is it in their best interests and the interests of their shareholders?

for the record i dont like the euphamism "mind altering" perception altering would be better.

if we were to categorize drugs as mind altering, I think many legal drugs could be considered as such.

Most of the scientific community considers Shulgin at best a curiosity and at worst a menace. Now, however, near the end of his career, his faith in the potential of psychedelics has at least a chance at vindication. A little more than a month ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved a Harvard Medical School study looking at whether MDMA can alleviate the fear and anxiety of terminal cancer patients. And next month will mark a year since Michael Mithoefer, a psychiatrist in Charleston, S.C., started his study of Ecstasy-assisted therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder. At the same time, with somewhat less attention, studies at the Harbor-U.C.L.A. Medical Center and the University of Arizona, Tucson, have focused on the therapeutic potential of psilocybin (the active ingredient in ''magic mushrooms''). It's far from a revolution, but it is an opening, and as both scientist and advocate, Shulgin has helped create it. If -- and it's a big ''if'' -- the results of the studies are promising enough, it might bring something like legitimacy to the Shulgin pharmacopoeia.