Substance Use Disorders (SUD)Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)Equity and EthicsKetamine

Self-Experiments with Psychoactive Substances: A Historical Perspective

This book chapter (2018) presents a historic overview of self-experimentation with psychoactive substances whose scientific documentation began in the mid-1850s and continuously expanded over the next 125 years while stimulating scientific (and therapeutic) advances and becoming increasingly widespread amongst layperson with the rise of New Psychoactive Substances. While psychologists like William James and Sigmund Freud drew significant inspiration from their drug experiences, other examples may serve as cautionary tales, such as John C. Lilly’s account of ketamine dependence that developed out of self-experimentation.

Authors

  • Thomas Passie
  • Simon Brandt

Published

New Psychoactive Substances
meta Study

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the rich tradition of self-experiments (SEs) with psychoactive substances carried out by scientists and therapists for more than a century. Scientifically inspired controlled SEs dominated until the end of the twentieth century, when ethical requirements minimized controlled SEs and “wild” SEs expanded particularly with the emergence of new psychoactive substances. The review focuses on laughing gas (nitrous oxide), cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogens, entactogens, and dissociative hallucinogens. This is due to the fact that substances that induce “complex” effects such as alteration of space/time experience, ego dissolution, and increased feelings and insights (e.g., hallucinogens, entactogens) represent by far the majority of SEs, whereas SEs with substances inducing “simple” effects such as euphoria, anxiolysis, dissociation, or emotional blunting (e.g., cocaine, opioids) are much rarer or even absent (e.g., benzodiazepines). Complex drug effects are much harder to describe, thus allowing SEs to fulfill a more important function. SEs with psychoactive drugs appeared to emerge in the mid-eighteenth century, which triggered a long-standing tradition throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century. SEs have been de facto performed for a variety of reasons, ranging from establishing scientific knowledge and gaining philosophical insights to compensating for personal deficits. Self-experimenters can be divided into two general types. Besides their scientific intentions, “exploratory” self-experimenters intend to expand awareness and insight, whereas “compensatory” self-experimenters might aim for coping with psychiatric symptoms or personality deficits. Scientific limitations of SEs are obvious when compared to double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Whereas the former might lead to more “realistic” detailed description of subjective effects, the latter lead to more solid results in respect to objectively measurable “average” effects. Possible adverse effects of SEs were identified that resulted in loss of scientific objectivity and decreased control over substance use and addiction, development of isolation, problematic group dynamics, and “social autism.

Available with Blossom Pro

Research Summary of 'Self-Experiments with Psychoactive Substances: A Historical Perspective'

Introduction

Passie and colleagues situate their chapter within a long but under‑recognised tradition of self‑experimentation (SE) with psychoactive substances by physicians, psychologists and chemists. They note that SEs have been used for more than a century to explore subjective effects, refine therapeutic procedures, gain philosophical insight, and sometimes to compensate for personal deficits. The authors argue that substances producing complex alterations of consciousness (for example classic hallucinogens and entactogens) attracted far more SE activity than drugs with more predictable ‘‘simple’’ effects (for example many stimulants or benzodiazepines), because complex subjective states are harder to describe and therefore especially amenable to first‑person investigation. This chapter aims to provide a historical overview of SEs with selected psychoactive classes (laughing gas/nitrous oxide, cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogens, entactogens, and some dissociatives), to classify types of SEs, to document motives and consequences, and to consider ethical and safety issues. The authors limit the scope to SEs conducted by medically or scientifically trained individuals and emphasise the contrast between controlled SEs performed in clinical settings and the ‘‘wild’’ or informal SEs that became more common with the rise of new psychoactive substances (NPS) from the 1960s onward.

Expert Research Summaries

Go Pro to access AI-powered section-by-section summaries, editorial takes, and the full research toolkit.

Study Details

References (9)

Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom

46 cited
Psilocybin with psychological support for treatment-resistant depression: an open-label feasibility study

Carhart-Harris, R. L., Bolstridge, M., Rucker, J. et al. · Lancet Psychiatry (2016)

1174 cited
Safety and efficacy of lysergic acid diethylamide-assisted psychotherapy for anxiety associated with life-threatening diseases

Gasser, P., Holstein, D., Michel, Y. et al. · Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (2014)

594 cited
Reactions to psilocybin administered in a supportive environment

Leary, T., Litwin, G. H., Metzner, R. · Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (1977)

The History of MDMA as an Underground Drug in the United States, 1960-1979

Passie, T., Benzenhöfer, U. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2016)

Cited By (2)

Papers in Blossom that reference this study

Can psychedelics enhance group psychotherapy? A discussion on the therapeutic factors

Ponomarenko, P., Seragnoli, F., Calder, A. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2023)

Your Personal Research Library

Go Pro to save papers, add notes, rate studies, and organize your research into custom shelves.