*36C3 preroll music*
Herald: OK! Let’s come to the talk. So, next up is Andrea Jungaberle. She is
talking about drugs and how drugs affect the psychiatry. Oh, that is a hard word.
Why don't you do it, huh? I know now. And the question is, after the—what
is “Verbot” in English? Andrea Jungaberle: Prohibition.
Herald: Prohibition right, after the prohibition in the ’70s, not much thinking
about how these drugs work and how could they improve psychiatry, has been done, so
now everybody’s asking, is this the magic bullet cure? I don’t believe so. But more
about this by Andrea. Well, warm welcome, please.
*applause*
Andrea: So hello, everybody. I'm very happy to be here and able to talk to you
on a topic that is very important to me and I think very important to many people
now and in the future. So the topic today is psychedelic medicine, hacking,
psychiatry. And just to give away the punchline, it's not a magic bullet and
will never be. But on the other hand, there are lots of things to know and think
about in this context that I would like to introduce you to. But first, a few
words about myself. I'm a medical doctor, specialized in emergency medicine /
intensive care. I work and live in Berlin. And I'm also one of the founders of MIND,
the European Foundation for Psychedelic Science, and its current medical director.
One more sentence about us. That's our core team. So MIND is a members-based
Psychedelic Science Association. We have run 450 members worldwide and a core
team of about 50 people. That is a nucleus of paid staff, lots of very dedicated,
very good volunteers and great interns from different disciplines like the
neurosciences, psychiatry, psychology, and pharmacology, for example. So we work to
establish psychedelic science as an evidence-based method and also educate
about it in Germany and Europe around it. Okay, but let's dive in at the deep end.
Psychedelics. What are psychedelics? Well, the term comes from the Greek Psyche
Delos, which could be translated as “manifesting the mind of the psyche.” So
many were talking about psychoactive substances with a certain, well, capability
of transforming one's perception, introspection, sensory qualities in a very
typical way that is sometimes described as dreamlike, but not necessarily so. The
classic psychedelics that are also called hallucinogens, which I don't like as a
term because they don't induce hallucinations. What they do is induce
pseudo-hallucinations; so somebody on a psychedelic substance, usually in 99%
of the time is aware that they have taken a substance and what they're
experiencing is due to the substance. So it's not a hallucinogen, but a pseudo-
hallucinogen. But these substances, like the classics—LSD, psilocybin, or DMT—
function in a very specific way and they all are working on the serotoninergic system.
So serotonin is one of the key neurotransmitters and there's one receptor
which is the 5-HT2A receptor, which is, like, the smallest common denominator of
all those substances, which doesn't say that they all work just on this one, but
they affect a whole plethora of neurotransmitters and receptors. But this
is the key where they all work. There are other substances that are classified as
somehow psychedelic, like the entactogens—ecstasy, MDMA is one of the
kind—which works also on the serotonin system. Dissociatives, like ketamine,
work more on the NMDA receptor and some others; they are just basically chemical
random, like Amanita, which is the Fly Agaric Mushroom, or Datura, or Salvia. OK.
This is the only slide I'm going to bother you with this dry kind of science. But I
think it's important to be clear about this because even though psychedelics are
a pop cultural meme, hardly anybody knows anything about it, to be honest. Most
people associate them with being drugs of the same danger profile as methamphetamine
or opioids. Think there is an addiction factor which in fact does not exist with
classic psychedelics. And basically it has been the dirty corner of perception for
many people for a very long time. Recently, things have changed a bit. Psychedelics
have come mainstream. Firstly, because there is a perception shift on drugs in
general due to the cannabis perception and medication changing. And also because
people like, for example, Michael Pollan, who's a classic mainstream author writing
on cooking and nutrition, have turned to writing about psychedelics. And another
factor that has helped psychedelics in one way and harmed them and another is the
whole microdosing craze we have seen, especially in the tech and developmental
scenes, and especially in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley. OK, but where do they come
from? In this talk, I am not going to speak about psychedelic, psychoactive
substances in other cultural frameworks. There are cultures like in the Amazonian
basin or some Aztec people in Mexico who have been using psychoactive
substances, psychedelics, in a very ritualized sense for millennia, perhaps,
or at least centuries. But this is not us. So let's talk about what happened here in
Europe or in the Western world, including America. This guy up here, sorry, that's
the wrong one. The pointer isn't strong enough. We'll work like this. This nice
guy up here is Albert Hofmann. In 1938, he was developing several substances that
were supposed to work on atonia and in postpartum women, but also on other
problems like blood pressure and he, among other things, developed the
thing that later became LSD. But back then, he didn't see any sense in
pursuing it medically because it didn't work the way he wanted it to and he
shelved it. And for some reason in ’43, he took it out the shelf again to retest it
for other purposes, and accidently gave himself the first noted LSD trip. This
happened not because he was a shitty chemist, but because the amount that is
needed to induce an effect is so low as it has never been noted before in any other
substance. So 20 micrograms of LSD can already produce a notable change in
perception. So when he came out of that experience, this first one he had, after
accidentally dosing himself, he decided to go for, well, a trial on himself and
trying to be safe. He used what he thought was a very low dose of the substance he
discovered, which turned out to be 250 micrograms of LSD, which was his… I hear
the laughter. It’s rather a high dose trip, especially for somebody who just
didn't know what was expecting him out there in his own mind. And this is the
famous bicycle day trip where he rode home on his bike thinking that the world was
collapsing around him, basically. So even this wasn't a nice trip, the first one. So
what happened next was that he reported to his superiors at Sandoz Chemical in Basel,
and they had the idea of turning this into a substance for many doctors,
psychiatrists, psychologists, to experience what it would be like to be psychotic. So
its first application of LSD was as a psychotomimetic. And as a psychoto-
mimetic, thousands of dosages were distributed worldwide from the
Czech Republic to Harvard University to everywhere. And doctors tried it out. What
happened then was that a small group of young, ambitious psychologists around
Timothy Leary tried it out too, and thought this is not just something for
doctors. This is not just a psychoto- mimetic and brought it out basically into,
yeah, the real world. And people were experimenting with LSD quite a bit in the
’60s before it was forbidden in ’71. Not because it turned out to be so dangerous.
They were not so many accidents. Not so many people had dire side effects. But
because the political will to cope with the substance and its implications wasn't
existent in the Nixon era. So. ’71, underground goes into subculture. But the
genie was out of the bottle and it was not going to go back in. And psychedelics, not
only LSD, but also Psilocybin, later on MDMA. And these days, more than 500 new
psychoactive substances that have been brought up on the black market are around
us. And people use them. It's a societal reality that our juridical system doesn't
keep up with, to be fair. So it's been in many subcultural setting from people just
going dancing and having a good time to self-exploration to pseudo-chamanic or
chamanic settings. And I think most people will at least know somebody who have
experienced psychedelics at least once. And then something else changed. A few
years ago, let’s say, 10-ish, 10 years ago, psychedelics started coming back. There
had been research, for example, at the University of Zürich around psychedelics
before that already. There had been trials before. But the big comeback of substances
like psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA as tools to augment psychotherapy was within the last
10 or 15 years. So these people up here are some of the people worldwide working
with these substances, trying to develop them into medications. So … not
over-the-counter, but prescription medications to be applied within the
setting of psychotherapy. So the idea is never that somebody can walk into a
pharmacy saying, oh, I'm depressed, I want to buy psilocybin to treat myself, but to
have a structured therapeutical session in which the effects can be contained and the
benefits enhanced. So the ones that are most promising these days are psilocybin
for depression, which is already heading for the third stage, third and final stage
of approvement as medication within the USA and consecutively hopefully in Europe. And
MDMA, so what is used? What people want to find if they buy ecstasy, not that they
always get it, but MDMA is the substance they're trying to get, for post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD). In the U.S., even the Veterans Association has jumped on the
bandwagon and has sponsored this research, which is interesting at least. But isn't
that harmful? Aren't these substances very dangerous? Well, not in the way you
think and not as much as you might think. This graphic up here is something that was
put together by a group of 40 experts who discussed what substances have what harm
on the user and what harm on the people around the users. So, for example, alcohol
is harmful for the person, giving them a liver disorder, making them addicted and
so on, so on. But also because people get aggressive when they use it or drive
dangerously, for example, when they're intoxicated, it's dangerous to others. If
you check out. I have to walk over here now. Sorry to the camera people. The
substances we're talking about for treatment are not up there with the very
dangerous ones. We have the shrooms down here, the LSD is there, ecstasy is there.
So very low danger to the user and almost no danger to other people. If you compare
that to alcohol, heroin, tobacco, it's all up there. And, to be quite fair, we’re all
part of a giant field study anyway. Because these substances *are* being used. This is
data from the 2017 Global Drug Survey, which is a self-reporting study where
people talk about their own drug use and fill in forms online. This is not a
statistically sound sample of the general population because to fill out that trial,
you have to have a certain interest. But the people that have filled this out—
we're talking about a number of over 115.000 worldwide—say that
they have, in their lifetime, partially used LSD. … were the numbers …? MDMA,
mushrooms and LSD, so MDMA 35%, mushrooms almost 25%, LSD over 22%.
And if you look around you, of how many people do you know who
ended up in an emergency department or in a psychiatric ward due to _only_ using
those substances? Actually, looking at this giant field study that the illegal
market has provided us with, it seems to be rather safe because these people
are not using clear dosages of a clean substance and still there's hardly
anything happening. OK. But what about microdosing? Well. We don't know much
about microdosing, in fact. There are no scientifically randomized controlled
studies, as to yet; the first ones are just starting. There are self-reporting studies
where people have filled out online forms. And it seems to be that what people are on
one hand trying to achieve is, yes, enhancing creativity, getting better work
performance. But a lot of them are trying to treat, cure, enhance that latent or
apparent depression, and the other thing is: microdosing—which is defined mostly as
using a very low, almost subliminal dose of a psychoactive substance such as LSD—is
being done by people with all sorts. There are people microdosing MDMA and ibogaine,
which is, if you look at the receptor profiles, just insane basically and
frankly can't do what they hope it does. And when we took a look at people who
microdose, we can't say how much of the effect they’re feeling is really from
microdosing that substance or if we have a top-notch, first-grade placebo effect going
on where people feel much better because they have taken this and believe in it.
Let's not turn down placebo. Placebo is extremely valuable medically. It’s
actually shown that placebo effect, for example, enhance the endogenous opioid
production. So your body revs up towards healing, towards feeling better with the
placebo effect. But this could also be done with a sugar pill. And there's one
thing I just want to leave with you in this group. If anybody of you is
microdosing and has preexisting heart condition: don't! Simply because some of
the subreceptors, especially with LSD that are being activated in prolonged micro
dosing for a long time can be cardiotoxic and possibly harm your heart. Just again,
there's not clear data about this yet. Just to leave it with you, if you suffer
from a heart condition: don’t! Depression. That keyword I had with the
microdosing as well. But let's go deeper into this, because if we want to
talk about how psychedelic medicine can really make a difference in psychiatry,
depression is like, yeah, the first-line thing to think and talk about and why is
that? Depression is a very serious psychiatric disorder. People who are
severely depressed—and that's many people; statistically, in Germany, every 8th
woman is likely to suffer from a severe depressive episode. At one point in their
life or the other. People who are depressed lose social functioning. They
have very decreased life expectancy partially through suicide, partially
because they don't manage to care for themselves. These people lose themselves
and are being lost for others, too. And there is treatment for depression, yes,
but in many cases it only has a limited capacity. And even though depression is a
worldwide epidemic—with rates from 3% of the population in China to
22% of the population in Afghanistan suffering from it—there have not really
been new forms of treatment for two, two and a half decades‽ So the stuff we're
working with is partially working, partly not: about one third of patients don't
react to the medication at all, even though there's different types. And those
who do usually have very low rates of acceptance because of the side effects.
Because many people use antidepressants, and the best combination is cognitive
behavior therapy—so what is called in German “Verhaltenstherapie,” cognitive
behavioral therapy—in conjunction with antidepressants. That might work, but for
some it doesn't. And those who take the medication don't feel well. It's not that
they're back to normal. They're just less depressed. But usually they're like dimmed
in on all sides. So they are still not getting happy. The libido is decreased.
Their activity levels are decreased. People are suffering quite a bit from the
side effects and it's really not nice. So. I was just … just to tell you one
little story. I told you I’m an emergency medicine doctor. And just
to illustrate how bad depression can get: A few weeks ago, I was being called out to
an attempt of suicide. A woman had jumped out of her window on the fourth floor. We
found her lying in her yard and she was... injured, badly injured, but still alive,
and we stabilized her and took her to hospital, and when the nurse kind of
pulled up her data in the emergency room, she went like, oh, no, not again, because
this woman had jumped out the same window just half a year before. That's how bad
this disease can be. So how desperate people get and how terribly important it
is for us not to look away, but try to find better new therapies. And this is, in
my opinion, with psychedelic medicine … Psychedelic therapy can be a real game
changer. The one therapeutic application we have the best data for is psychedelics
for treatment-resistant depression. There are several studies going on in the UK, in
the States, and Switzerland, but also in the Czech Republic and so on, so on. And
what they seem to be finding is that even though they're still working with small
samples because you have to fan out; if you try to bring out a medication like
that, you have to show first that it's safe with healthy people and then you
start with a small sample of sick people and then you enlarge it from there. And
they’re now in this enlarging process … that's treating depression with psilocybin
especially does not only decrease depression in those patients, but also
does one great thing: it decreases anxiety! Not only talking about state
anxiety, so how anxious people are at this very moment in living their lives, but
that trait anxiety. So how anxious people are as a part of their personality, which
is a good thing to gauge how likely people are to relapse back into depression,
people that are very anxious, very insecure about life, are far more likely
to relapse. OK, so you see, there's a lot happening worldwide studying this, but
this is Germany on that. A scientific desert. We're in the largest country;
It’s also the scientifically perhaps most important country when it comes to medical
research in Europe. There’s zilch happening. There hasn't been a study on
psychoactive compounds in this context, forever, like 30 years, the last one on
entactogens like 20 years ago. But studying psychedelic here hasn't happened.
And we want to change that. Let’s … *applause*
So we as the main foundation had, perhaps, let's call it groundbreaking, what a
groundbreaking conference this September in Berlin at the Charité buildings.
We had 600 participants, over 50 speakers from worldwide, everybody
basically, almost everybody who's important in this dialog scientifically
was around. So from the pharmacology, the psychiatrist, the psychologist, the
therapist, but also philosophers talking about a culture of older sets of mind have
been around. And we have been trying to bring this to the German public and try to
lay groundwork for doing new science in Germany. And what's to come next is this.
With our P.I., so a principal investigator, Gerhard Gründer, who is a
new pharmacologist from the University of Mannheim ZI. We are about to apply for the
1st psilocybin depression study in Germany this next year. So in 2020, we're
putting in the applications, we've already put the first paperwork in, and what we
want to do is do a double standard study, both at the ZI Mannheim and the
Charité Berlin. Those are the two most renowned psychiatric research facilities
in Germany. And it's a collaboration from the ZI, Charité, and the MIND Foundation.
Each group contributing their knowledge, their capabilities, and their strengths.
And what we want to do is this. We want to do a double blind, randomized
controlled phase IIa study. Big word. this basically means that … It’s a
top-notch level, internationally acclaimed study. This is how these studies need to be
done to have any value. So it's double blind, meaning that neither the patient
nor the therapist know what this patient is getting. It's randomized. So this gets
assigned without anybody playing around with it. And phase II means that it's a
safety and efficacy study, so not yet dose testing and not yet comparing dosages, but
just trying to make sure it works. And we are going to do that in a 144 participants
sample in total, in two locations, which is huge. This will be the second or third
biggest sample worldwide doing this. And the first one in Germany, as we said and
what we are going to test is 25 milligrams of standardised GMP. So
Medical Grade Psilocybin versus two active placebos. One being a small dose of
psilocybin, which used to be the standard thing to do. But now talking about
microdosing, what is if the small doses already does something? And testing it
against another placebo that isn't psilocybin, which is: there’s some physical
reaction, but is not psychedelic in this sense. So in this design, every patient
will receive at least one—some two—high dosages of psilocybin. So everybody who
gets accepted will have his try. And the study design consists of preparation
sessions, dosing sessions where people receive either placebo or psilocybin and
integration sessions. Integration is so important and not only in a scientific
study on this topic, but if people are working with psychedelics, experimenting
with psychedelics themselves, integration is the key to do something with the
experience. Because if you don't work with it actively, the experience is going to
fade. And you might remember something about what you learned, but it will not
have the impact on you, your life, and how you—yeah—benefit from what you've seen
and learned in that way. Right. Just one more sentence. It's mixed funding, its
funding and progress. So we have some public money coming in, but we're also
looking for donations and investment just at the side. And this is almost the end of
my talk. What I want to say is the following: What we try at the moment
is to establish safe and legal psychedelic therapies in Germany, Europe, and the
world. This is going to take time. If things go well, we might be there in five
to ten years—five if things go really well. And I know that it's very tempting
for many people to say: “Well, I can just go to somebody and have a
psilocybin session. I can go to somebody, have an ayahuasca session.” And yes, you
can. But be aware if you do that, because you're really suffering from psychiatric
disease, if you have a mental illness, if you really are in distress. Be very
careful with yourself, because the thing is, you need somebody to really support
you, really help you through somebody who really knows what they're dealing with,
because otherwise you can do yourself more harm than good. This picture down there
with the ambulance is a real picture. Right. That's what I wanted to say.
Thank you very much for having me. If you're interested in what we're doing,
check it out! *appplause*
Herald: Andrea, thank you very much. That gives us plenty of time for some
questions. People are lining up on the microphones already. So we start with
microphone number two, please. Mic 1: Thank you for this amazing talk.
That's really great. Just one question. Wouldn't that be a problem for a double
blind study if a person can surely tell if they're experiencing psychedelic effects?
Andrea: That is a problem. Yes, but this is the way the authorities request the
study to be done. And interestingly enough, there have been cases where people
couldn't tell. If people thought they were either on a small dosage or on a high
dosage, or even if they where on an inactive placebo. Right. So the self…
Yeah, self-suggestive capabilities of people should not be underestimated
either. Herald: Okay, then we're going to jump
over to number six. Mic 6: Thank you very much for the
talk. I would like to hear your opinion on the fact that, uh, like in the last 150
years, most drug agents were discovered in Germany, and meanwhile, we have
the pity of scientifically Germany lying in Arizona.
*laughter* Andrea: Right. Germany has two points that
historically hold us back. One is the forced human trials during the Nazi era
where substances, techniques, were tested on concentration camp prisoners. And we have
the Contergan scandal that harmed so many people and led to, in all of the world,
the stricter rules we have now. That's two reasons why Germany is so reluctant to
expose itself in this kind of process. But still, it is a pity. And I think it is
about time that the German not only government, but also the scientific
establishment gets to understand that they lose out and they are trading behind a
development that has started and will continue.
Herald: And now we have a question from the Internet, I hear.
Signal Angel: Yes! For people struggling with depression, anxiety, or
mental illnesses: What specific options are there in Europe with regards to
psychedelic-assisted therapy? Andrea: Well, one is that you can try to
participate in the existing trial. So, for example, in London, there's Kings College
and Imperial College, there's a group in Bristol working, there's also therapy
happening in Switzerland and so on. And there's also, if you happen to be lucky
enough to live in Switzerland, there's the so-called compassionate use where
psychiatrists with special permits are allowed to use LSD and MDMA as therapeutic
agents on a case-to-case basis that they have to discuss with the authorities.
So that's all we can say for now: study participation or compassionate use.
We just really hope that things will rev up and we'll be able
to offer more in the future. Herald: And microphone number 4, please.
Mic 4: Yeah. Hello. Thank you very much for your talk.
My question is more related to the history of the uses of psychedelics
in the US and to the MAPS Association founded by Rick Doblin, but I was curious,
how would you explain that MAPS is so actively criticizing the experiments led
in the 1950s and ’60s by the CIA, and yet they accept donations of several million
dollars coming from the Mercer family, who are among the largest shareholders of
Cambridge Analytica, Breitbart News, and they also accept, they accepted recently
about three millions from members of Tea Party. Isn't it a bit of an irony here?
*applause* Andrea: That is a very good question. The
way I know Rick Doblin and many people from MAPS personally, I know that they're
pursuing an honest goal. What they’re trying to do is bring this into the world
and they have been doing that since 1986. So they've been on this for almost 35
years. He's dedicated his life to doing that. I don't fully understand his
motives. I don't have to, to be honest, because I'm not speaking for him. I think
there is a huge necessity for integrity because if we don't—as people working
with it scientifically—if we don't move along with the necessary integrity, we're
opening the doors for other people to don't care at all. But on the other hand,
finding the money, getting this done and a lot … he was … Rick was criticized a lot,
for example, for accepting veterans; snipers from Iraq into his therapy
program. Like, okay, are you not getting people fit again to go out back to the
battlefield? And I find this all very difficult because there is a thing that is
called perpetrated PTSD. There is a thing of people only realizing afterwards what
they have done. And I would not … I would be very careful in judging people in
distress. But you're very right. It's a very delicate topic. And I think we all
have to be very aware that there are thin paths we are threading in what we're
doing there. When we accept money that comes from sources that don't follow
ethical standards. Herald: Then we're going to switch over to
microphone number five. Mic 5: Hello, I guess you have a really
nice answer to the following statement. So I hope you will share your answer:
Little Greta twittered today that the house is on fire and just that. So
actually that means an adequate reaction would be to jump out of the window. So you
could argue that actually we should rescue all the people that are really down, like
down and out, because they cannot help us anymore. But actually, we should get the
people that are still happy to be a little depressed instead of all getting them
happy. What do you say? Andrea: There's always two ways of dealing
with a system: You can step out of it, and you can try to change it from within.
It is always very difficult to go from caring for the individual to things that
are right for all. And me being a doctor, for example, I have simply decided to put
the individual in the center of my concern, and I think others need to put
the greater good in the center of their concern. I think it's inconsolable. We
can't do both at the same time. So it's good to make your decision and do this
what you do with all your heart. Herald: Then we're going to switch over to
the Internet again. Signal Angel: Yes. And do you know of any
studies or evidence corroborating the other side, like triggering mental
illnesses by using psychedelics, for example, if you have a family history of …?
Andrea: Well, doing a randomized, controlled study with that would be
unethical. So what we have is the epidemiological and the anecdotal
evidence that is found. So, yes, if you have a predisposition for
psychosis, for schizophrenia, for mental instability, there is a large chance of
triggering that if you use psychedelics. But on the other hand, many people try to
self-medicate with substances, be it psychedelics or cannabis, because they're
feeling they're already on the edge of some instability. But the current paradigm
for the studies is to exclude people whose direct family is affected by
psychosis. Herald: Number two just disappeared, so
we're gonna go straight over to four. Mic 4: I would like to ask you whether you
changed your mind about anything related to psychedelics in last few years or if
you have seen something in the research that really surprised you?
Andrea: Let’s … Well, I am worried. In a few respects. Like, for example, the whole
development around the 5-MeO scene, people using bufo alvarius toxins for very, very strong
psychedelic experiences, sometimes risking their live doing it. This whole scene
kind of lifting from the ground and going in a very strange direction, in my
opinion. This is kind of worrying me because I think people are not taking the
care they should be taking of themselves in what they are doing. But otherwise, I
think scientific results we're seeing are rather consistent. It's very important to
know that these are not magic bullets and not expect too much. You can’t expect
something to cure everything. And psychedelics seem to be a good idea
for people who are rigid, transfixed, not able to transcend something. But people
who are already like in a chaotic state are very unlikely to benefit. And I think
that's a very good basic rule. And this is something I see proven
time and time again. Herald: Number five, please.
Mic 5: Hi, thanks. Regarding certain setting and how it can have such a huge
influence on one's experience, can you comment on the setting of the new
psilocybin study in the upcoming year? Andrea: Like all the studies that are
being ta… being done, certain settings are being taken into consideration. These
people don't trip in a sterile white hospital bed. They get to have their
psychedelic experience in a warm, comfortable, organic, welcoming
environment. For example, on a couch with a nice cushion, nice dim light, flowers,
music is extremely important. There have been released scientific works around what
kind of music is beneficial for those. Mendel Kaelen, for example, at Imperial
College is a specialist in this kind of music and is being taken very seriously.
Also, those questions of how much physical contact is beneficial, is allowed. What
could harm the patient is discussed very precisely in all those groups I know,
because this is so much more than just a pill. This is really about making sure
that people have a safe experience where they can, yeah, come to healing inside
themselves Mic 5: Thank you.
Herald: So we have time for one more question. Number one, please.
Mic 1: I don't know if I want to hear the answer, but do you think it would help
your cause if you would stop take these drugs for fun?
Andrea: My answer to this is the following: Imagine there was a food
thing, something that tasted nice; let’s say chocolate and there were people
who could only survive if they got chocolate. But because everybody else was
doing it too, and it was somehow not okay, it would be forbidden for
everybody. Then I would say, well if you replace chocolate with LSD, I think there
are people there who really need it. And we have to be careful that recreational
use and playing around with drugs doesn't spoil their chance to something lifesaving
because they need the chocolate. You might get along without, but it's something we
have to take into consideration. This doesn't mean it's wrong to have psychedelic
experience for your own benefit, for your own betterment, for your own fun. But just
keep in mind, if you're hindering with your wanting to have a good time that
somebody gets a life-saving therapy, perhaps, then this is an ethical problem
we are facing. Herald: Andrea, thank you so much.
That's your applause. *applause*
*36c3 rollout music*
subtitles created by c3subtitles.de in the year 2020. Join, and help us!