Welcome to the 33 brave souls who’ve chosen to subscribe to The Ethical Trip. (And to the one legend who bought me five coffees cacti: You’re the reason this newsletter isn’t written on the back of old drafts of my PhD.)

In this issue:

For all this, plus some un-asked for political opinions and a story that should make you uncomfortable, read on!

A number of recent papers have, again, raised the question of just how much therapy is required for psychedelics to have positive effects. Or, to put it more accurately, they highlight how complex the question is, and why the answer isn’t going to be a simple yes or no.

Healy et al. (2025) found ‘prospective, longitudinal improvements in trauma symptoms, shame, and connectedness among adults with childhood maltreatment histories following psychedelic experiences with therapeutic intent in naturalistic settings.’ In this case, ‘naturalistic settings’ included both facilitated ceremonies and raves. What I found really interesting is that there was no significant difference between the outcomes for people who attended ceremonies vs raves or other EDM events. So perhaps I’ve buried the lede a little here, and the question should be ‘do psychedelics need facilitators and guides or can we all just go out dancing?’

Richard et al. (2025) looked at changes in measures related to internalising problems (such as depression), cognitive flexibility and substance use, in people before and after psilocybin experiences in naturalistic settings. Here, the picture is more nuanced. While the majority of people in this study improved in terms of depression, when the participants are grouped by pre-existing mental health and substance use characteristics, it’s clear that some people are more likely to see improvements than others in naturalistic settings.

Based on data from the Global Psychedelic Survey, Glynos et al. (2025) indicates that North American People of Colour may experience longer-lasting benefits following naturalistic use of psychedelics compared to White North Americans. They also found that while POC respondents were less likely to have engaged in Psychedelic Assisted Therapy than White people, those who did were far more likely to see the therapy component as important.

Finally, Viña (2025) found that the reductions in distress associated with psychedelic use were less for Native Americans under most circumstances. The exceptions were the use of peyote/mescaline on tribal lands, or LSD use, which produced reductions in distress more in line with those experienced by White people.

What can we conclude from this? Like I said at the start, it’s complicated. It’s clear that social, economic, and environmental contexts can’t be ignored - but we should have known that anyway. What I will say is all of this should give us pause when someone makes blanket statements about needing/not needing therapists (or facilitators, tripsitters, integration specialists etc.)

Esketamine - Spravato - has recently been added to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits scheme. This means the cost to patients for the medication itself will be no more than $32. While this means the drug itself is now far more affordable, other barriers to access will remain. Not all psychiatrists offer this treatment, and those that do often have very long waiting lists for all but the most urgent of cases. And the quirks of Australia’s sort-of universal healthcare system mean that most patients would still need to find hundreds of dollars per treatment to pay the psychiatrists themselves.

Want to help upgrade my budget to ‘actually pays rent’ status? Support me via Buy Me a Coffee.

Technology can change us. But it's not just the surface changes in actions or how we complete specific tasks that are important. Underneath and intertwined with this, our relationship with technology can range from liberation, enhancing our freedom, to existential anaesthesia, numbing us to the nature of technology and life itself.

Inspired by Nolen Gertz’s book, Nihilism and Technology, I look at some of the impacts of Large Language Model AIs (LLMs), and the philosophy underlying their growing role in our lives. It’s an analysis that’s (hopefully) deeper than just ‘AI bad!’ The roots of where we are at are in us as much as anything else.

The issue isn’t just that these LLMs cause harm, or that we’re seemingly ready to shrug and accept this. The real question is what is behind that acceptance? Once we understand that, we can see the questions we need to confront in order to repair our relationship with technology.

Read more: AI and Nihilism (Warning: contains traces of Nietzsche.)

Politics is ethics in practice, at scale. Or it should be. Either way, when you make a decision about who you vote for (or if voting isn’t compulsory, if you vote at all,) you’re making a values-based decision.

My opinion on who I think it’s most ethical to vote for can’t be a huge surprise, given that I’ve hardly been shy over the years with my views. Ideally, we’d have a greens-socialist government, Labor in opposition, the Liberals/Nationals as a rump of bitter cross-benchers, and Pauline Hanson exploring the glamourous life of a solitary lighthouse keeper with no internet connection. But that’s not the world we live in, yet.

So I’ll hold my nose and say that the sad beige centrists in Labor are a preferable government to the even more cruel and regressive Coalition.

That said, neither Labor nor the Coalition are equipped for what’s happening now, much less what’s coming. If books like All In: A Revolutionary Theory to Stop Climate Collapse and organisations like Climaximo are right, the only way forward that’s compatible with avoiding climate change disaster involves much more radical change than these parties or the political system they inhabit are capable of. There’s a lesson in that for aspiring drug law reform activists, but that’s a story for another day.

Is it a bad sign if a facilitator dates previous or current participants or students? Is it a good sign if they ensure that agreements and boundaries are honoured by all people present, including assistants? (Spoilers: the answer to both those questions is ‘Yes!’)

Psychedelic Safety Flags, is a free guide currently hosted by EPIC, and contains a comprehensive list of ‘flags’, from green (awesome) to red (danger, stay away!) to help assess practitioner ethics and safety. It’s a living document, so if you have ideas about the content, leave a comment in the google doc and the authors will work through it.

While it’s aimed at ‘seekers’, this is a resource that could helpful for psychedelic practitioners too (those that are capable of honest self-reflection, at least.)

I want to point out that even though I’m part of EPIC, all credit for this resource should go to the authors and reviewers: Leia Friedwoman, Hila Dean, Carolyn Fine, Will Hall, Tannis Patnoe Dennis, Rafaelle Lancelotta, Sandra Dreisbach, Claire Berjot, Nathaniel Putnam, and Kelsey Armeni.

My flash fiction, Bro, Do You Even Optimize?, will soon be released into the wild at Slobstack, once the linear flow of time reasserts itself.

Here’s a taste:

When it goes live, I’ll share the link with you all first. (Or, if it doesn’t, I’ll read it aloud, fireside, at EGA Garden States: Regeneration)

If you made it this far, thanks for reading!

What is the reddest of red flags you’ve witnessed in the world of psychedelics? Hit reply to let me know and I’ll feature it next time (with your permission, of course.) Alternatively, forward this email to someone who still thinks chatbots are going to save the world.

As always, all feedback and suggestions are welcome, and I promise* to not satirise you without mercy.

*Unless you deserve it.

PS: For my IFS-savvy readers:

Q: What is the favourite drink of Richard C. Schwartz?

A: The Unattached Bourbon

(Everyone else: Google ‘IFS unattached burden.’)

Written on Worimi lands. Sovereignty was never ceded.

Icon by Freepik from Flaticon