Psychedelics as a Value

A word about Oregon

[Note: paywall released on When Patents Met Regulations]

We haven’t covered the Oregon Psilocybin Services Act or other state initiatives in detail on On Drugs. We likely never will. State initiatives aren’t our jam; we like to stick with what we think we know: the federal stuff. There’s also no need. From what we can tell, Mason Marks and others do a pretty good job, including deep dives. And major kudos to Mason and others for tanking a rule that would have required users of psilocybin services in Oregon to consent to have their data harvested.

Except, we’re now told, it’s back. Legislators are seeking to enact legislation to require data collection.

I do not know enough to comment on certain details, but on the whole, I share Mason’s discomfort. Collecting and moving data belonging to individuals involved in illegal activities—no, psilocybin is not legal to use in Oregon or anywhere else in the United States—is playing with fire. That’s true even if data is “de-identified” or anonymized. As Mason points out, de-identified data still poses risks “because one’s identity can be reattached.”¹

The defense of collecting client data presented in this Lucid article is unpersuasive. Without data collection, we’re told, we wont know “how the program is helping people with mental health, what the program costs and perhaps more importantly, who does not have access.” Maybe that’s right, although I suspect sometime in the past several decades a statistician or epidemiologist or whatnot has figured out how to conduct such analyses without forcing clients to turn over data. This cannot possibly be the first time in human history anyone has been confronted with the issue of evaluating the success of a client-based program without being able to harvest data directly from its participants.

In any event, the people of Oregon enacted a ballot measure to provide state services, not to surrender themselves as human guinea pigs for the state. I’m sure that’s not what the Oregon people thought they were voting for, and the level of contempt for individuals baked into this new legislation, and the justification offered for it by the individuals who directed the ballot measure is astounding. Apparently, in Oregon, you being a data point to help assess the performance of an illegal program is more important than protecting you from law enforcement consequences. You don’t matter; the program does. One big lab experiment.

Also remember: the Oregon program isn’t supposed to be “helping people with mental health.” Because, after all, a medical model would adhere to medical norms, such as the protection of patient data. Thus, the “success” of the program shouldn’t be measured based on “client outcomes.”

The “compromise” solution proposed in the article of having an “independent nonprofit” collect data fares no better. Arguably, it’s worse. It is easier to subpoena a third-party non-profit and bully them into compliance than a state agency. (Nothing would permit defiance of a federal court subpoena). Also, I’m no computer scientist, but it is likely easier to hack “an independent nonprofit” than a state agency as well.

This proposed solution totally misses the problem, which is as Mason states it: collecting an unprecedented amount of data from individuals engaged in illegal activity and centralizing it—anywhere. That being the problem, here’s the solution: put it all on the blockchain.

I know the perfect Blockchain guy. Bait-and-switch pro and looking for work.

Psych!

Actually, the solution is far simpler:

Don’t force people who want to use a state-legal-federally-illegal service to turn over their data to some kind of central repository. There isn't anything wrong with collecting data of consenting clients with an option. Create incentives. Want to remain anonymous? That will cost you. Or invert it: here’s a discount for your data.² There’s an entire body of science/literature on how to nudge people to do things they might not want to do without wholly depriving them of choice.

So, I’m with Mason on this one. The whole Oregon thing stinks. Indeed, part of me hopes the feds shut down Oregon before it ever starts up.

Finally, what appears to be unfolding in Oregon is another instance of an emerging trend in psychedelics. I call it “psychedelics as a value” or “psychedelics for psychedelics’ sake”: when promoting psychedelics becomes a core value, an end in itself. To me, neither psychedelics nor drug policy are core values. Core values are things like truth, liberty, freedom, democracy, honesty, integrity, safety, etc. “Psychedelics as a value,” however, is the notion that psychedelics and promoting psychedelics ought to be in that list and the belief that promoting psychedelics is worth the cost of compromising on other core values. Generally speaking, this is not something I subscribe to.³

In the case of Oregon, what I see is a group of individuals with influence attempting to prioritize and justify the advancement of the psychedelic renaissance and proliferation of the use of psychedelics over the liberty and privacy of (and honesty toward) those who voted for a measure that they thought would allow their community to use psychedelics safely, discretely, and responsibly. Not a fan.

1. Without deeply analyzing the issue—one wonders if that setup crosses into Leary v. United States territory, where in a reverse situation, the Supreme Court held registration provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 to be unconstitutional on grounds that it would risk self-incrimination.

2. Some view data as 21st century consideration for services. Facebook isn’t a free service. It monetizes your data. You pay for Facebook by giving it your personal data.

3. Here’s a little simple trick I use to figure out where I come down on things. First, I try to identify the values I believe in most closely related to the proposal or item at-issue; second, I ask whether the proposal aligns with or promotes those values.