Sunzi, ‘shì’ and strategy: How to read ‘Art of War’ the way its author intended

A copy of the ‘Art of War’ from a collection at the University of California, Riverside. vlasta2/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Scott D. McDonald, Tufts University

In the mid-1990s, I picked up the military classic “Art of War” hoping to find insight into my new career as an officer in the United States Marine Corps.

I was not the only one looking for insights from the sage Sunzi, also known as Sun Tzu, who died over 2,500 years ago. “Art of War” has long been mined for an understanding of China’s strategic tradition and universal military truths. The book’s maxims, such as “know the enemy and know yourself,” are routinely quoted in military texts, as well as business and management books.

Initially, I was disappointed. It seemed Sunzi’s advice was either common sense or in agreement with Western military classics. However, a few years later the Marine Corps trained me as a China scholar, and I spent much of my career working on U.S. policy in the Indo-Pacific region. This deepened my desire to understand how leaders in the People’s Republic of China see the world and choose strategies. Looking for insight, I turned to classical Chinese philosophy and finally encountered concepts that helped illuminate the unique perspective of Sunzi’s “Art of War.”

Today, I am an academic researching how Chinese philosophy and foreign policy intersect. To comprehend “Art of War,” it helps readers to approach the text from the worldview of its author. That means reading Sunzi’s advice through the prism of classical Chinese metaphysics, which is deeply shaped by the philosophy of Daoism.

Daoist roots

China’s intellectual tradition is rooted in the Warring States period from the 5th to 3rd century B.C.E., the era during which Sunzi is thought to have lived. Though a time of conflict, it was also a time of cultural and intellectual development that led to the rise of Daoism and Confucianism.

Sunzi’s writing has had a significant impact on both Chinese and foreign politics. Pictures From History/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Confucian philosophy focuses on maintaining proper social relationships as the key to moral behavior and and social harmony. Daoism, on the other hand, is more concerned with metaphysics: trying to understand the workings of the natural world and drawing analogies about how humans should act.

Daoism views existence as composed of constant cycles of change, in which power ebbs and flows. Meanwhile, the “Dào,” or “the way,” directs all things in nature toward fulfilling their inherent potential, like water flowing downhill.

Helping nature take its course

The Chinese word for this concept of “situational potential” is 勢, or “shì” – the name of Chapter Five in “Art of War.” Almost every Western version translates it differently, but it is key to the military concepts Sunzi employs.

For example, Chapter Five explains how those who are “expert at war” are not overly concerned with individual soldiers. Instead, effective leaders are able to determine the potential in the situation and put themselves in position to take advantage of it.

This is why later chapters spend so much time discussing geography and deployment of forces, rather than fighting techniques. One does more to damage an opponent’s potential by undermining their scheme than by merely killing their soldiers. Sunzi is concerned about long supply lines, because they lower an army’s potential by making it harder to move and vulnerable to disruption. A general who understands potential can evaluate troops, terrain and scheme, then arrange the battlefield to “subdue the enemy without fighting.”

Painting of a battle between Chinese and Vietnamese forces during the Qing invasion of Vietnam in 1788. Pictures From History/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

In Daoist thought, the correct way to manage each situation’s potential is to act with 無為, “wúwéi,” which literally translates as “nonaction.” However, the key idea is to disturb the natural order as little as possible, taking the minimum action needed to allow the situation’s potential to be fulfilled. The term does not appear in “Art of War,” but a contemporary reader of Sunzi’s would have been familiar with the connection between nurturing “shì” and acting with “wúwéi.”

The importance of acting with “wúwéi” is illustrated by the Confucian philosopher Mengzi’s story about a farmer who pulled on his corn stalks in an attempt to help them grow tall, but killed the crop instead. One does not help corn grow by forcing it but by understanding its natural potential and acting accordingly: ensuring the soil is good, weeds are removed and water is sufficient. Actions are most effective when they nurture potential, not when they try to force it.

From the battlefield to the UN

In a Daoist understanding, leaders hoping to chart an effective strategy must read the situation, discover its potential, and position their armies or states in the best position to take advantage of “shì.” They act with “wúwéi” to nurture situations, rather than force, which could disturb the situation and cause chaos.

Therefore, in foreign policy, a decision-maker should attempt to make small policy adjustments as early as possible to slowly manage the development of the international environment. This approach is evident in Beijing’s use of “guānxì.” Meaning “relationships,” the Chinese term carries a strong sense of mutual obligation.

For example, the PRC waged a decadeslong effort to take over the United Nations “China seat” from Taiwan, where the Republic of China government had fled after Communists’ victory in the civil war. Beijing accomplished that by slowly building friendships, identifying shared strategic interests and accruing owed favors with many small states around the world, until in 1971 it had enough votes in the General Assembly.

Trend-watching today

The concept of “shì” also provides a lens for understanding the PRC’s increasing pressure on Taiwan, a self-ruled island that Beijing claims is its own territory.

A Taiwanese tank used in previous conflicts and on display for tourists in Kinmen, Taiwan, is seen silhouetted against the skyline of the mainland city of Xiamen. Chris McGrath/Getty Images

Sunzi might say that discerning the current trend in the Taiwan Strait is more essential than conventional questions about comparative military strength. Several factors could push Taiwan closer to Beijing, including the island’s loss of diplomatic allies and the pull of the PRC’s massive economy – not to mention Beijing’s growing global clout vis-à-vis the U.S. If so, shì is in Beijing’s favor, and a nudge to persuade the U.S. to stay out is all that is needed to keep the situation developing to the PRC’s advantage.

Or is the potential developing in the other direction? Such factors as a growing sense of a unique Taiwanese identity and the PRC’s troubled economic model may make closer ties with the mainland less and less appealing in Taiwan. In that case, Beijing may see a need to appear strong and dominant so Taiwan will not be lulled into counting on support from Washington, D.C.

A surface reading of Sunzi can easily support an emphasis on troop deployments, intelligence and logistics. However, an understanding of “shì” highlights Sunzi’s emphasis on evaluating and nurturing situational potential. It is not that the former are unimportant, but a decision-maker will use them differently if the goal is to manage situational trends rather than seek decisive battle.

That “Art of War” continues to top sales lists demonstrates its lasting appeal. However, to be useful as a guide to understanding security policy and strategy, my experience in the Indo-Pacific region suggests one must dig into the principles that shaped Sunzi’s view of the world and continue to shape the view of leaders in Beijing.

Scott D. McDonald, Non-resident Fellow, Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies; PhD Candidate, The Fletcher School, Tufts University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

When are parents responsible for their kids’ behavior?

A researcher weighs in on who’s accountable, when and why, in the eyes of the law — and whether the measures work as intended

By Elise Hansen 

When the parents of Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbley were convicted of involuntary manslaughter, it was a watershed moment in US school shooting cases. It was also a key moment in parental culpability law, governing cases in which parents can be held legally responsible for the actions of their children.

Ethan Crumbley, who at age 15 brought a gun to his high school and killed four people and injured seven, pleaded guilty to 24 crimes at his own trial in 2022. But for the first time in American history, a school shooter’s parents were also convicted, of involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced to prison terms.

States have a variety of laws that hold parents responsible for youth offenses under what are called parental culpability laws. Most of these cases involve lower-level matters such as skipping school or damaging property, says developmental psychologist Colleen Sbeglia.

A doctoral candidate at the University of California, Irvine, Sbeglia was lead author of a paper in the Annual Review of Criminology that examines the wide range of behaviors covered by parental culpability laws and whether the laws work as intended. She spoke with Knowable Magazine about the laws — and the surprisingly small amount of research on their effectiveness.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What’s significant about the criminal convictions for Ethan Crumbley’s parents?

Criminal charges have never been brought against the parents of a school shooter — or at least, not successfully. So this is really the first time we’re seeing this in American history.

Now that there’s precedent, is it possible we’ll start to see more cases where the parents of school shooters are held criminally accountable?

It is possible. If there’s precedent for something, that helps you build a case for doing the same thing again in the future. But with this particular case, there was so much verifiable, documented evidence of negligence that made it pretty unique. It will be important to watch and see what happens in the future.

How severe do the circumstances have to be, in order for parents to get criminally charged?

The bar is extremely high. You have to prove negligence, which in many cases is difficult. And you also have to be able to somehow disentangle the actions of the perpetrator — in these cases, the child — from the actions of the parents, which is normally kind of impossible to do.

Especially if we start thinking about teenagers, 16 to 17 years old, how much can their parents really control their behavior? That’s something that’s hard to prove definitively in court. Parents are important: They can try to do as much as they can and should be involved as much as they can. But at the end of the day, kids can become pretty independent by their mid-teens.

I think part of the reason why prosecutors were able to successfully bring charges against the parents in the Ethan Crumbley case is because there were so many text messages and records of ignored calls and documented instances of negligence.

Aside from these criminal charges for a school shooting, there’s a whole range of civil charges that can be brought against parents for much smaller stuff that their kids do wrong. What do those cases look like?

Two other broad categories come up much more frequently. If a kid damages some type of property, parents are going to be responsible for financial restitution. Kids don’t have jobs; they’re not able to pay, so the parents are on the hook for that. Civil liability can also include personal injury. If a kid causes a car accident, then the parents can be on the hook for the damage to the vehicle, but they may also have to pay for the personal injury damages.

The other big category is status offenses: behaviors that are illegal only because the youth is under 18. That includes things like underage drinking, truancy — not attending school — or violating curfew.

What’s the typical penalty for parents in a status offense case?

There are different laws by state, so it varies, but a lot of times it’s fines: Parents have to pay a certain amount, which is supposed to encourage them to monitor their kids more closely. Though it’s much more rare, the penalties in some states can be up to incarceration, or eviction, or parents having driver’s licenses taken away. These are obviously more extreme cases, but in some states it could, in theory, lead to that.

Why do we have these laws? What was the thinking behind putting these laws in place?

In the thinking behind any laws that we have, the goals are sort of twofold. One is to restore justice to the victim of the crime. And the other one is either to deter people from committing a crime in the first place or to stop them from committing a crime again.

With parental culpability laws, if the kid hurts someone or damages some property, you’d be able to restore something to the victim. But the other piece, this deterrence piece, implies that if these laws exist, then maybe parents will more closely monitor their children and try to control their behavior better. Or that if their kid does get in trouble, there’s consequences on the parents so they’ll change their behavior to become “better parents.”

But the problem is, we just don’t know if the laws have that deterrent effect. They might, but we do not know.

Why do we know so little about whether these laws help prevent juvenile crime?

There’s a lack of research. Originally, when we were writing our review, we planned to survey the research on the effects of parental culpability sanctions. And then we realized, “Oh, we don’t have much to write about.”

Why? Why is there so little research on this?

I think part of it is because, the way that counties keep records, it’s difficult to know how often these parental culpability charges are really pursued. All 50 states have property damage and restitution laws, and all 50 states have status offenses like truancy. But the charges can be pursued differently based on demographic factors, like race, and location.

And sometimes cases may come up that involve parental responsibility — such as someone suing a parent — that don’t follow the pattern of the government pursuing charges based on parental responsibility laws.

And then there can be different definitions of how things are measured. Like truancy, for example. When Kamala Harris was district attorney in San Francisco, she fought for strict truancy laws at one point. She wanted truancy to be defined as kids missing more than 10 percent of school days. So for a while, truancy was defined that way, but before that, it was just defined as “excessive absenteeism,” which is not a strict standard.

So what you are saying is that, for an academic studying this, getting one-to-one comparisons across states or jurisdictions could be really hard.

Yes. And another reason why there is a lack of research is that when we implement laws, for better or for worse they don’t automatically come with a study to see how effective they are.

So we don’t have much direct research on this question. But there are some real-life examples of consequences of really strict parental culpability laws.

Going back to the Kamala Harris example, not only did she push for a stricter truancy standard in San Francisco, when she became the attorney general for the state of California, she championed a law that made that the standard statewide. And the penalties on parents if their kids had too many unexcused absences could include fines or even jail time. This is maybe a good idea in theory: making a clear definition of truancy, making it consistent statewide, and being clear and consistent about the punishment that people can expect if kids don’t go to school. It would make it easier to research, too.

But there were a lot of unintended consequences here. Soon after the law went into effect, there was a single mother in Orange County in Southern California who was arrested and perp-walked for having her child miss more than 10 percent of the school days. But it turns out her child had sickle cell anemia and was missing school for medical appointments. Now, the mom and the school had not fully worked out the accommodation plan yet. But this is a single mom who has a child with an extreme medical condition and is facing lots of medical bills, and she got arrested and it was very publicized on television. Nowadays, Kamala Harris is trying to promote data-driven policies instead, and trying to understand the reasons why kids miss school, instead of just punishing parents.

And do status cases, such as truancy, happen often? What’s the scale of this issue?

In writing the review, I found that roughly speaking, there’s on average around 100,000 status offense cases that are filed in the United States every year.

You mentioned the mother in Orange County who was arrested. Could lesser penalties, such as a fine, cause hardship too?

Yes. If you think, for example, about a single mother who is socioeconomically disadvantaged, may have multiple children, and may be working multiple jobs, it can be very difficult for her to have the time and the resources to help her child do what they need to do.

Suppose it comes out that one of her sons hasn’t been going to school. If she has to pay a fine of several hundred dollars, she may have to pick up extra shifts at work to deal with this unexpected expense, which further limits her ability to monitor her son’s behavior. And it’s also possible that it is weakening their bond, because of course he’s doing something that he shouldn’t be doing and is causing his mother financial stress. And that can deteriorate the warmth in their relationship.

And there is research showing that having a warm relationship with your mother can help to prevent delinquency. A study published in 2017 followed 317 mothers and their teenage sons over two and a half years. The sons had just been arrested for the first time when the study started, and interviews over the study period showed that a high-quality mother-son relationship reduced youths’ reoffending over time.

There’s also research showing that being socioeconomically disadvantaged is a risk factor for adolescents engaging in delinquent behavior. And if parents have to pay fines, if they have to take time away from work to go in and attend hearings, the time and money can add up.

So perhaps these penalties could be counterproductive?

There isn’t much research on this, so we don’t know for sure. But we do know that these penalties on parents can contribute to all these other factors — such as financial hardship and family bonds — that are linked to juvenile crime.

What are the next steps for researchers and policymakers interested in this issue?

First and most obviously, it would be good to be able to measure the effect that these laws have. Are they having the desired effect — that after kids get in trouble, they don’t get in trouble again? Or if the parent has to pay fines or face some other consequence, is that actually related to a change in their parenting behavior? We know that if parents are more involved, and they are monitoring their children, that is linked to lower delinquency. But we don’t know if laws are making that change in parents.

But I would say the biggest avenue for future research, based on what we know about adolescent development, is whether support for parents and families is more effective at preventing or reducing crime than parental responsibility laws. Getting someone involved in the legal system does not necessarily address why the behavior happened. I think it’s important to remember that, especially when it comes to kids, the root of the problem is not necessarily criminal in nature.

More often than not, it’s a social problem: It could be because they don’t have a good neighborhood, or they are with other peers who are engaging in risky behaviors or who are involved in gangs. They might not have strong ties with their parents, maybe because their parents are working long hours or multiple jobs.

And on top of this, speaking in terms of their psychological development, teens are really wanting to seek out exciting things, and they’re not very good at controlling their impulses. Across the globe, risk-taking and offending behavior peaks during the teenage years, but almost all youth, even ones who commit serious crimes, stop offending as adults.

And so I think for the future, it’s also important to remember that the legal system is not the only tool that we have to address societal problems, especially when the root of these types of problems is often social in nature.

Why is it so important for there to be more research on these questions?

The Ethan Crumbley case is particularly horrible, but it is very rare and does not represent the majority of cases where parents will face legal culpability. We don’t know what the effects of parental culpability laws are on juvenile offending, but we do know that there could be many unintended consequences of parental culpability laws that have the potential to make juvenile crime worse.

So doing the research and actually evaluating things empirically is really important, because that can help us design better policies that do the most good, while limiting harm as much as possible.

Knowable Magazine

As humans, we all want self-respect – and keeping that in mind might be the missing ingredient when you try to change someone’s mind

Looking to persuade someone? Start with respect. dusanpetkovic/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Colin Marshall, University of Washington

Why is persuasion so hard, even when you have facts on your side?

As a philosopher, I’m especially interested in persuasion – not just how to convince someone, but how to do it ethically, without manipulation. I’ve found that one of the deepest insights comes from the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, a focus of my research, who was born 300 years ago: April 22, 1724.

In his final book on ethics, “The Doctrine of Virtue,” Kant writes that each of us has a certain duty when we try to correct others’ beliefs. If we think they’re mistaken, we shouldn’t dismiss them as “absurdities” or “poor judgment,” he says, but must suppose that their views “contain some truth.”

What Kant is describing might sound like humility – just recognizing that other people often know things we don’t. But it goes beyond that.

This moral duty to find truth in others’ mistakes is based on helping the other person “preserve his respect for his own understanding,” Kant claims. In other words, even when we encounter obviously false points of view, morality calls on us to help the person we’re talking to maintain their self-respect – to find something reasonable in their views.

This advice can come across as patronizing, as though we were supposed to treat other adults like children with fragile egos. But I think Kant is onto something important here, and contemporary psychology can help us see it.

The need for respect

Imagine that you had to postpone lunch because of a meeting. With only 15 minutes to spare and a growling stomach, you leave to get a burrito.

On your way, however, you run into a colleague. “I’m glad to see you,” they say. “I’m hoping to change your mind about something from the meeting.”

In that scenario, your colleague has little chance of persuading you. Why? Well, you need food, and they’re getting in the way of you satisfying that need.

As psychologists of persuasion have long recognized, a key factor in persuasion is attention, and people don’t attend to persuasive arguments when they have more pressing needs – especially hunger, sleep and safety. But less obvious needs can also make people unpersuadable.

No, I really don’t to hear your ‘quick idea’ – not until I have some food in me, anyway. Jose Luis Pelaez/Stone via Getty Images

One that has received a lot of attention in recent decades is the need for social belonging.

The psychologist Dan Kahan gives the example of somebody who, like everyone in their community, incorrectly denies the existence of climate change. If that person publicly corrected their beliefs, they might be ostracized from friends and family. In that case, Kahan suggests, it can be “perfectly rational” for them to simply ignore the scientific evidence about an issue that they can’t directly affect, in order to satisfy their social need for connection.

This means that a respectful persuader needs to take into account others’ need for social dignity, such as by avoiding public settings when discussing topics that might be sensitive or taboo.

… and self-respect

Yet external needs, like hunger or social acceptance, aren’t the only ones that get in the way of persuasion. In a classic 1988 article on self-affirmation, the psychologist Claude Steele argued that our desire to maintain some “self-regard” as a good, competent person profoundly shapes psychology.

In more philosophical terms: People have a need for self-respect. This can explain why, for instance, students sometimes blame low grades on bad luck and difficult material, but explain high grades in terms of their own ability and effort.

Steele’s approach has yielded some surprising results. For example, one study invited female students to write down values that were important to them – an exercise in self-affirmation. Afterward, many students who had done this exercise earned higher grades in a physics course, particularly girls who had previously performed worse than male students.

That study and many others illustrate how bolstering someone’s self-esteem can equip them to tackle intellectual challenges, including challenges to their personal beliefs.

With that in mind, let’s turn back to Kant.

Politics are personal

Recall Kant’s claim: When we encounter somebody with false beliefs, even absurdly false ones, we must help them preserve their respect for their own understanding by acknowledging some element of truth in their judgments. That truth could be a fact we’d overlooked, or an important experience they’d had.

Kant isn’t just talking about being humble or polite. He directs attention to a real need that people have – a need that persuaders have to recognize if they want to get a fair hearing.

For example, say that you want to change your cousin’s mind about whom to support in the 2024 election. You come equipped with well-crafted evidence and carefully choose a good moment for a one-on-one talk.

Despite all that, your chances will be slim if you ignore your cousin’s need for self-respect. In a country as polarized as the U.S. is today, an argument about whom to vote for can feel like a direct attack on someone’s competence and moral decency.

In today’s climate, political conversations can feel like attacks on your character, not the politician’s. Goran 13/iStock via Getty Images

So providing somebody with evidence that they should change their views can run headfirst into their need for self-respect – our human need to see ourselves as intelligent and good.

Moral maturity

Persuasion, in other words, takes a lot of juggling: In addition to making strong persuasive arguments, a persuader also has to avoid threatening the other person’s need for self-respect.

Actual juggling would be a lot easier if we could slow down the objects. That’s why juggling on the Moon would be about twice as easy as on Earth, thanks to the Moon’s lower gravity.

When it comes to persuasion, though, we can slow things down by pacing the conversation, opening up time to learn something from the other person in return. This signals that you take them seriously – and that can bolster their self-esteem.

To be ethical, this openness to learning must be sincere. But that’s not hard: On most topics, each of us have limited experience. For example, perhaps Donald Trump or Joe Biden validated some of your cousin’s frustrations about their local government, in ways you couldn’t have guessed.

This approach has an important benefit to you as well: helping you preserve your own self-respect. After all, approaching others with humility shows moral maturity. Recognizing others’ need for self-respect can not only help you persuade someone, but persuade in ways you can feel proud of.

Colin Marshall, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Washington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

 

Philadelphia has a lot more deadly shootings than expected for a big city − and NYC is much safer, new study says

Rayan Succar, New York University and Maurizio Porfiri, New York University

Recent high-profile mass shootings at SEPTA bus stations have left Philadelphia commuters on high alert. Two gunmen opened fire at a bus stop in the Ogontz neighborhood on March 4, 2024, striking five people and killing 17-year-old Dayemen Taylor. Two days later, a group of teenagers shot eight other teens waiting at a bus stop near Northeast High School after school.

So far in 2024, 86 people have been killed in Philadelphia – the vast majority of them after being shot. And yet, the city is still on track to have the lowest number of homicides since 2016, a sign of just how violent it has been in past years.

A new study by New York University urban science researchers Rayan Succar and Maurizio Porfiri uses a methodology known as urban scaling to understand how violence in Philadelphia and other cities compares with what might be expected in cities based on their size. They answered the following questions for The Conversation.

What is urban scaling?

Big cities – filled with millions of people interacting with each other – are complex systems.

Urban scaling laws are used to explain how certain features of cities – from average salaries to road surface area to COVID infection rates – increase or decrease as population grows. These changes are not in direct relationship to population increases and decreases. In other words, the relationship isn’t linear.

As surprising as it sounds, some quantities – the rate of homicides, for example – tend to increase even more than the rate of population growth. Mathematicians call this superlinear growth. So, a larger population leads to a statistical increase not just in the number of homicides but in the rate of homicides relative to the population.

Other quantities, such as gun ownership and access, may grow at a slower rate as city population increases. This is called sublinear growth. Our study shows that the percentage of gun owners and accessibility, measured by the number of licensed gun sellers in a specific metro region, generally decreases as population increases.

To get a more nuanced view, urban scientists like us use a measure called the Scale-Adjusted Metropolitan Indicator. This indicator was originally proposed by Luis Bettencourt, an urban scientist at the University of Chicago and the Santa Fe Institute. It takes into account nonlinear scaling patterns observed in cities, allowing for a more accurate comparison of different urban areas.

For our study, we used the SAMI to rank 833 U.S. metro areas in terms of homicide rates. We collected data on local rates of gun ownership, accessibility and the prevalence of homicides from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The data takes into account all guns owned – whether they were acquired legally or illegally.

National Guard troops were deployed to New York City in March 2024 to address rising crime on the subways. Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images

How did Philly compare with other big cities?

Philadelphia has far fewer homes with firearms and fewer gun dealers than what its population would predict. And yet, Philadelphia still experiences a higher-than-expected rate of violence.

Among the nine cities with populations over 5 million, the Philadelphia metropolitan area – this includes Camden, New Jersey, and Wilmington, Delaware – had the second-largest deviation from what is expected from its size. Chicago had the largest deviation, meaning it was more violent than its size suggests by the largest amount.

For comparison with other cities of varying size, Detroit also has more violence than expected for its population, while Miami is about average, and Boulder is much safer than expected.

While often perceived as unsafe, New York City is actually significantly more safe than one might expect given its population. In fact, it ranks as the least violent of cities with more than 5 million people.

New York’s favorable scores suggest that efforts to reduce violence there have been successful, while efforts in Philadelphia aren’t working as well.

Rayan Succar, Ph.D. Candidate in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, New York University and Maurizio Porfiri, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Biomedical Engineering, New York University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

How to Support Your Pet's Health During Summer

As a pet parent, you know your pet’s needs are continually evolving. That’s true during different stages of growth and even as the seasons change.

Part of supporting your pet throughout the year is understanding the specific risks that come with changing weather and special seasonal events. Supporting pets this summer can be easier with these tips:

Summer Health Concerns
It may be an exciting time of year for humans with all the extra activities, seasonal celebrations and travel, but those summer pastimes can add up to a whole lot of stress for pets. In addition, environmental factors like allergens and heat can affect them more than you realize.

• Allergies: Pets can be affected by many of the same allergens as humans, including grass, pollen and other vegetation that is more prevalent during warmer months. Watch for signs of trouble such as scratching, chewing, watery eyes and general discomfort. Veterinarians can offer advice on allergy support and supplements appropriate for your pet’s age, breed and size.

• Fireworks: Summer tends to bring more loud noise and commotion in general, but this is especially true around the Fourth of July when explosions become the norm. If pets are fearful, it’s especially important to ensure they stay in well-secured areas since fireworks are a common cause of pets running away. If possible, find a safe spot within your house where outside noises are muffled. Provide some comfort items and check on them regularly. If they seem extremely distressed, vet-recommended anxiety treatments and supplements can help promote relaxation and soothe their nerves.

• Travel: If your pet suffers from separation anxiety, summer trips can be especially problematic. One solution is to take your pet with you, but that’s not always practical or even possible. When pets with separation anxiety stay behind, it’s a good idea to leave them with someone they know, and even better if that person can stay in your home so pets are in familiar surroundings. If that’s not an option, introducing pets to their caretaker or doing a trial run at the kennel can help ease their nerves. In extreme cases, you may need to consult with a vet about supplements that can help soothe pets in your absence.

• Dehydration: Just like humans, hotter temperatures make it easier to get dehydrated, which can lead to myriad health concerns. Ensure pets have access to fresh, clean and cool water at all times and be sure to alert your veterinarian if you notice any changes in their interest in drinking, as that can signal an issue. Also watch for signs of dehydration, such as weakness, less energy, changes in appetite and panting.

Managing Activity Levels
During the summer months, pets may be tempted to take it easy in the heat, or you may have the opposite problem: a pet that’s a little too active for the elements. Monitoring their activity level is important to ensure they don’t get overheated but also get adequate exercise to maintain a healthy weight and keep muscle tone strong. This may require getting creative about bringing playtime indoors or shifting your routine to accommodate walks early or late in the day when temperatures tend to be more forgiving.

Introducing Health Supplements
Monitoring pets’ health isn’t a one-size-fits-all effort. In fact, different breeds have distinct needs when it comes to exercise, behavioral training and even nutrition. Supplements, from multifunctional solutions to those targeting specific issues, can help complement regular food to ensure pets are getting all of the nutrients and preventative support they need to thrive. One comprehensive option is NaturVet’s Breed Specific Soft Chews supplement line, which is made up of five products that provide proactive support for distinct dog breed categories, including toy/small, bully, sport/working, doodle and giant.

The vet-formulated soft chew line was designed to offer a streamlined and personalized supplement approach for breeds with particular health needs. To support pets precisely as they are, each product offering is formulated for pure and mixed breed dogs alike, delivering tailored, wholesome ingredients to address joint, allergy, immune, heart, gut, anxiety and dental issues.  

Find more advice for supporting your pet’s health this summer and beyond at naturvet.com.

SOURCE:

NaturVet

 

Spilling the Secrets to Early Literacy

For young children, learning to read is a critical step in their educational journeys, as literacy helps build cognitive abilities and language proficiency and has a direct impact on later academic achievement.

While there are no shortcuts to early literacy, there are steps parents can take to promote the development of children’s reading abilities. Dr. Lauren Loquasto, senior vice president and chief academic officer at The Goddard School, and Steve Metzger, award-winning author of more than 70 children’s books, share this guidance for parents.

Get Started Early
It’s never too early to start reading with children. In fact, they respond to being read to prenatally. One of the best ways to encourage early literacy is modeling the act of reading. Young children love to imitate, and if they see their parents reading, they are more likely to want to read themselves. Instead of scrolling on your phone or watching television while your children play, pick up a book or magazine.

Use Conversation to Build Literacy
To help build their vocabularies, consistently engage children in conversation. Literacy is more than reading and writing; it’s also listening and speaking. Children understand words before they can articulate them, so don’t be discouraged if it feels like a one-way conversation.

Expose Children to More Than Books
Make your home environment print-rich, as the more exposure children have to letters and words, the better. For example, keep magnetic letters and words on the fridge, put labels on your toy containers and position books and magazines in different rooms. Also remember reading isn’t limited to books. Words are everywhere, from street signs to restaurant menus. Take advantage of every opportunity to connect with your children through words throughout your day.

Let Them Take the Lead
Children engage with books in different, developmentally appropriate ways. Some children quickly flip through pages or only look at pictures while others might make up stories or their own words or songs. Some only want to read the same book over and over and some want to read a new book every time. Embrace and encourage their interest in books, no matter how they choose to use them.

Establish a Routine
Parents of young children often have busy and hectic lives, so it isn’t always easy to find time to read. Consistency is key, so be intentional about setting aside time for reading every day – perhaps it’s after dinner or before bedtime – and stick to it.

Select the Right Books
Helping young children choose books is an important part of their learning-to-read process. Developmental appropriateness is critical. For infants and toddlers, start with nursery rhymes, which are mini-stories that grasp children’s attention through repetition, rhythm and rhyming. Visuals are also important because they aren’t yet pulling words off the page. For emerging readers, choose books that align with their interests. Focus on books that are printed with text that goes from left to right and top to bottom.

Expose children to both fiction and non-fiction books. Non-fiction provides real-world knowledge children crave and helps them make sense of what they read in fictional stories. For example, the learnings about the life cycle of a bat they read in “Bat Loves the Night,” a non-fiction book, can help them better understand what’s happening in “Stellaluna,” a fiction book about a young bat.

If you’re in doubt about book choices, consult with a teacher or librarian, who can make recommendations based on your children’s interests and reading levels.

Foster a Love of Reading
Children’s early exposure to books can set the stage for a lifetime of reading. Make reading a time for discovery. Take children to a library or bookstore and encourage them to explore and find books on their own. Display genuine interest in their selections and use books as a tool for engaging and connecting with them. Don’t pressure children to learn how to read. Accept, validate and encourage them as they progress on their unique literacy journeys.

To watch a webinar recording featuring Loquasto and Metzger providing additional literacy guidance and recommendations, and access a wealth of actionable parenting insights and resources, visit the Parent Resource Center at GoddardSchool.com. 

SOURCE:
The Goddard School

Why probation and parole don’t work as advertised

The current system of supervised release in lieu of imprisonment may do more harm than good, some experts say. How can society do a better job of rehabilitating law-breakers while keeping them from re-offending?

By Lola Butcher

Marcella Soto had four children by the time she was 22 and was on and off welfare during the years they were growing up. By 2018, she was working a government job in California when she was charged with six counts of welfare fraud. Unable to prove that she had not misreported her income many years earlier, she pleaded guilty to a single felony count.

Soto was sentenced to the maximum probation term — five years — and was required to check in with a supervisor every month. Because of the conviction, she lost her job; because of the conditions of her probation, she was unable to travel to Texas to attend the birth of her first grandchild.

Being sentenced to probation put Soto in the largest group of people in America’s criminal justice system. About 1.9 million US residents are behind bars, and 3.7 million are being monitored while they are on probation in lieu of incarceration or on parole after being let out of lockup.

Probation and parole — collectively known as community supervision — were originally conceived as alternatives to incarceration, allowing convicted criminals to be rehabilitated under supervision. But criminal justice leaders say the practices have strayed from that original mission and become so ineffective that, ironically, they contribute to America’s overcrowded prisons. These critics call for an overhaul of community supervision, including shorter terms and more support for rehabilitation. In some states, new laws are making headway.

“Nearly half of the people going into jails and prisons are coming in from a failed and broken probation and parole system,” says Robert Rooks, chief executive officer of Reform Alliance, a nonprofit advocacy group. “So if you want to address mass incarceration in this country, you have to address the phase of probation and parole.”

Changing goals

Parole and probation were originally intended as opportunities to rehabilitate offenders through support, such as help finding jobs or housing. This focus on rehabilitation began to recede in the 1970s when a tough-on-crime public sentiment emerged. Parole and probation morphed instead into systems of surveillance — intense scrutiny over long periods of time — supposedly in support of public safety.

With this shift, critics say, community supervision became a form of “net-widening,” keeping people in the criminal justice system rather than easing them back into society. “In many people’s minds, this is a good thing you get instead of going to prison,” says Vincent Schiraldi, a former commissioner of the New York City Department of Probation. “But this is a bad thing. It’s got a lot of bad outcomes for a lot of people.”

For instance, probationers must comply with a growing, often complex list of conditions — which typically number 18 to 20 — that can be difficult to meet, Schiraldi says. Avoiding contact with anyone who has a criminal conviction is hard if an offender’s family or support network includes convicts; returning home by curfew can interfere with keeping a job. In Pennsylvania, where a released prisoner could be on parole for the rest of their life, probationers are prohibited from leaving the state, which means an Uber driver on probation in Philadelphia cannot drive into the suburbs that spill into Delaware.

“That right there shows you that our current policies are arbitrary, unnecessary and hinder people’s ability to do the things they need to do to become stable, get back to work and provide for their families,” Rooks says. “And that’s the opposite of what probation and parole should be doing.”

Indeed, a 1993 survey of people imprisoned in Texas found that 66 percent said they would choose incarceration over a 10-year probation sentence. When Schiraldi was New York City’s probation commissioner in 2010, he saw a woman give up her probation, choosing instead to go to Rikers Island jail, because she was unable to find childcare that she needed for her probation check-ins, where children were not allowed.

All these problems might be acceptable if probation and parole were meeting the goal of reducing incarceration without leading to more crime. Schiraldi and two colleagues examined that proposition in the 2023 Annual Review of Criminology — and concluded that they are not.

Community supervision clearly fails at reducing incarceration. The more people living under probation and parole in one year, the higher the incarceration rate the following year, according to work by Schiraldi and his coauthors. That reflects, in part, the fact that failing to comply with terms of supervision can mean a ticket to jail. In 2017, revocation of parole or probation accounted for 45 percent of prison admissions, and in 20 states, more than half of those revocations were not for new crimes, but for violating the terms of supervision.

The evidence on public safety is more equivocal. If releasing people on parole and probation poses a risk of further crime, then the more people released on supervision in a given year, the higher the crime rate would be in the following year. But that isn’t the case. Overall, a state’s probation, parole and total supervision rate in one year does not predict the state’s rate of index crime — a term that includes violent crime plus several kinds of property crimes — in the following year.

For parole alone, however, the researchers found that the more parolees in a given year, the more violent crime the next year. That implies that parole could be risky.

But looking at the issue in a different way, Urban Institute researchers showed no clear risk, as well as no benefits, from parole. The team reviewed long-term Bureau of Justice Statistics data on 38,624 prisoners from 14 states released from prison in 1994 and found that parole supervision does not substantially affect recidivism or public safety. People simply released from prison without supervision were no more likely to be rearrested than those who were required to complete a term of parole after their sentence, they found — though people paroled before the end of their prison sentences did have lower rearrest rates.

Other evidence also suggests that recidivism may arise early, so long supervision terms may not be helpful in reducing crime. For example, among felony probationers in Oregon who were rearrested within three years of their probation, 69 percent were arrested in the first year, according to data from the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. That suggests that the early months of probation and parole may be a critical period for helping offenders change their behavior and connecting them with community services.

In addition, making community supervision less punitive has been shown to work. One in-depth study of 283 offenders in an intensive supervision program in Wyoming compared the effect of rewards, such as praise or removal of electronic monitoring, to punishments, such as reprimands or tightened curfew. The offenders were most likely to complete their supervision successfully if they received at least four times as many rewards as sanctions.

Several studies show that employment for people under supervision helps to reduce recidivism. A transitional job program in New York City for people leaving prison led to a 9 percentage-point reduction in any type of recidivism (arrest, conviction or jail) over the three-year follow-up period compared to results with parolees not in the program. That suggests that supporting employment — rather than making it difficult by travel restrictions — is a good idea.

Evidence like this led Schiraldi and Barbara Broderick, former chief probation officer for Maricopa County in Arizona, to launch Exit, a group made up of current and former community supervision leaders, victims, prosecutors and others who want to see probation and parole downsized and returned to their original purpose of rehabilitation.

Among other aims, they want people on probation to be able to earn time off supervision if they maintain good behavior and achieve milestones like graduating from high school or keeping a job. They want the money saved from reduced supervision to be invested in community-based services that support people on probation or parole. They want incarceration for technical violations to be eliminated in favor of more and better supportive services that help people on parole and probation reintegrate into their communities.

A better way

Some of the greatest progress has been in California, where a series of reform laws since 2007 has transformed the incarceration and community supervision landscape, Rooks says. The reforms reduced prison sentences and supervision periods for many offenses and encouraged the use of evidence-based supervision strategies such as needs assessments, tailoring the intensity of supervision to a probationer’s risk of recidivism, and increased referrals to counseling, substance abuse treatment and employment services.

“In many people’s minds, [probation] is a good thing you get instead of going to prison. But this is a bad thing.”

— VINCENT SCHIRALDI

Because of these and other reforms, the number of Californians under community supervision fell from 477,733 in 2006 to 306,500 in 2020, a decrease of 42 percent. Meanwhile, reported crime declined by 7.4 percent during those years — and a study found the reforms had no measurable effect on violent crime, suggesting that less-punitive treatment did not increase crime.

Another California reform, passed in 2020, limits most probation sentences for misdemeanors to one year and most probation sentences for felonies to two. The change is projected to reduce the number of people on probation by a third, avert more than 48,000 prison stays because of technical violations and save the state $2.1 billion over five years, according to calculations by Recidiviz, a nonprofit organization that compiles and analyzes data to support criminal justice reform.

The saved money could be used to address the root causes of criminal behavior. For example, in early 2021 the El Dorado County Probation Department opened a house where probationers experiencing or at risk of homelessness can live and receive support services. “It allows you to free up the resources to give people the help that they need, which is what probation really should be about,” Rooks says.

When Soto learned about California’s new probation term limits in 2021, her probation officer did not support reducing her probation sentence, so Soto went to court. “The judge right away said, ‘You know what? I got her report. She’s never been in trouble and she’s working,’” she recalls. “And they let me off three years early.”

Now living in Oklahoma, where she works as a warehouse manager and lives with her daughter and the grandson whose birth she missed, Soto remembers that day. “I could travel and be free, and I didn’t have to worry about the visitation from the officer,” she said. “I was able to get my life back.”

The Power of Pets

Love. Community. Belonging. Pets offer people the chance to explore friendships and connections they didn’t always think were possible.

Pets provide companionship and help bring people together. In fact, according to Mars’ “Pets Connect Us” report 73% of pet parents have made connections despite generational, cultural or ethnic differences because of their four-legged pals.

Learn more about the report, which leveraged consumer insights to shed light on the future of pet parenthood in the U.S. and Canada, at BetterCitiesForPets.com/2023report.

SOURCE:
Mars Petcare 

   

Caring for a Feathered Flock

An antidote to the stresses of work and the fast pace of modern life may be closer than you realize. Whether on family farms or in urban backyards, chickens have the power to make your corner of the planet better.

Not only does raising chickens provide you with access to eggs for a tasty, nutritious and versatile food source, it also allows your family to be more self-sufficient, reduce your food miles and establish a family hobby that allows you to connect with one another.

“Chickens make wonderful companions and are often an overlooked option when a family is seeking the countless social, cognitive, physical and emotional benefits of pet ownership,” said Dr. Tanya K. Bailey, a pet therapist and creator of Pet Away Worry & Stress, a program that celebrates the healing connection between humans, animals and nature. “The fact is, many backyard chicken owners view their chickens as lovable household pets that contribute to their family’s sense of well-being.”

Before you bring your own flock home, consider these tips for raising chickens successfully:

Food
You may think of chickens as grain-eating vegetarians, but they’re actually omnivores with a diverse diet. Most chickens eat insects, as well as herbs, fruits, vegetables and grains. Experts recommend having enough food available for chickens to graze throughout the day, but a single daily feeding is usually adequate.

A specially designed chicken waterer can help ensure your hens always have a supply of clean water, but some prefer a trough-style waterer instead.

Housing
Chickens require room to roam, but they also need protection from predators and the weather. The most common setup for chicken housing involves an enclosed coop and a secure area where they can wander freely. Plan to secure several square feet of space per chicken to avoid crowding.

The coop you need will depend on many factors, but a versatile option like the Eglu Pro chicken coop is suitable for flocks of varying sizes. It provides housing for up to 10 large hens or 15 bantams with a low-maintenance design and hygienic, comfortable habitat. The coop offers a controllable climate with adjustable vents and double-walled insulation and numerous features to protect chickens from predators, including raccoon-proof locks.

“Over many hours, we watched, learned, asked and then invented an enhanced coop that does justice to the brilliance of the humble chicken, a pet that can bring so much joy to family members of all ages,” said Johannes Paul, co-founder of Omlet. “The ingenuity of the Eglu Pro is that it turns the dream of keeping chickens into a reality for everyone. Created not just for the chicken but because of the chicken, this coop helps those who are looking to slow down, destress and take control of their busy lives or crave the need to build a community around them.”

Health
It’s important to keep a close eye on your chickens’ health and safety. Proper housing and routine cleaning are keys to deter predators and prioritize hygiene to help minimize illnesses. Just like other pets, chickens require sufficient exercise and stimulation to maintain good health, which you can provide with foraging activities.

If you’re considering a new pet, chickens make for a lovable, economical option. Find more advice for raising a feathered flock at omlet.us.

SOURCE:
Omlet

Psychedelic drugs and the law: What’s next?

Q&A — Legal scholar Robert Mikos

The push to legalize magic mushrooms, MDMA, LSD and other hallucinogens is likely to heighten tensions between state and federal law, drug law expert Robert Mikos says

By Ben Seal

When Oregon’s first psilocybin service center opened in June 2023, allowing those over 21 to take mind-altering mushrooms in a state-licensed facility, the psychedelic revival that had been unfolding over the past two decades entered an important new phase.

Psilocybin is still illegal on the federal level. But now, as researchers explore the therapeutic potential of psilocybin and other psychedelics, including LSD and MDMA (also known as Molly or ecstasy), legal reform efforts are spreading across the country — raising tensions between state and federal laws.

As a class, psychedelic drugs were outlawed in the United States by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The act designated psychedelics as Schedule I drugs — the most restrictive classification, indicating a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. That status limits research to federally approved scientific studies and restricts federal funding to research with “significant medical evidence of a therapeutic advantage.”

Despite these limitations, researchers have demonstrated the potential of psychedelics in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety and addiction. A 2020 systematic review of recent research found that psychedelics can lessen symptoms linked to a variety of mental health conditions. While that review found no serious, long-term adverse physical or psychological effects from ingesting psychedelics, more research is needed on the latter.

Today, decades after research on the effects of hallucinogens on the brain was sidelined by the act, academic and cultural interest in psychedelics is on the rise. More than 60 percent of Americans now support regulated therapeutic use of psychedelics, while nearly half support decriminalization, and nearly 45 percent support spiritual and religious use. An estimated 5.5 million US adults use psychedelics each year.

In opening psilocybin service centers where adults can buy and consume “magic mushrooms” without a doctor’s prescription, Oregon took the biggest step yet toward expanding legal psychedelic access in the United States. In the process, it joined a growing number of states and municipalities that are carving their own paths with drug laws. Colorado legalized the use and possession of hallucinogenic mushrooms and three other psychedelics in 2022 and aims to open licensed use facilities by the end of 2024. And California’s legislature passed a bill in 2023 that would have legalized adult possession of psilocybin, the related psilocin and two other hallucinogens (dimethyltryptamine, or DMT, and mescaline), although Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed it in October, asking for legislation that focuses on therapeutic uses.

In all, 20 states introduced psychedelic-related legislation in 2023, ranging from plans to establish research councils and working groups to proposals to legalize use and possession of certain drugs. Meanwhile, cities in California, Michigan and Massachusetts have stopped enforcement or otherwise decriminalized possession of some psychedelics, typically ones that are naturally found in plants and fungi. Washington, DC, the seat of the federal government, has also loosened its psychedelic laws.

Some of these reform efforts aim to revive research that might lead to badly needed mental health treatments; others are pushing back against what many deem unfair criminal punishments stemming from the “war on drugs.” The result is a growing patchwork of state and local laws that stand in conflict with the Controlled Substances Act.

What does the future hold? Robert Mikos, an expert on drug law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Tennessee, says the history of marijuana law reform may offer some indicators.

In 1996, California voters approved the medical use of marijuana, and today 38 states have medical marijuana programs, while 24 states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational use. Seventy percent of Americans support marijuana legalization, up from about 25 percent when California first changed its law. And yet marijuana, which is sometimes itself considered a psychedelic, remains a Schedule I substance.

For marijuana, too, public perception underwent dramatic shifts as research demonstrated its relative safety and effectiveness for the treatment of pain and nausea, among other maladies.

Mikos analyzed the implications of marijuana reform history for the legal future of psychedelics in the 2022 Annual Review of Law and Social Science. In an interview with Knowable Magazine, he explored the path toward rescheduling, why different types of psychedelics need to be considered separately, and the interplay between federal and state drug laws.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

What have you learned from studying the history of marijuana reform in terms of what’s now happening with psychedelics?

The biggest lesson is that you don’t have to put all your eggs in one basket and get the federal government to sign on, which is extremely difficult to do. The states provide an alternate forum for pursuing reforms. We’ve seen some small changes to federal law, but in the last 26 years or so, we’ve seen the states figure out ways around all the obstacles erected by the federal government. There are some compromises and sacrifices that have to be made to work around federal law, but you can pull this off and have meaningful reform without agreement from the federal government — even with some hostility from the federal government.

Do you think the legal journey of marijuana should inform the future for psychedelics?

There are differences here. No one even agrees on what the term psychedelics encompasses. Some people think immediately of plant-based psychedelics like psilocybin. Others would include lab-made drugs like LSD. It’s a much more diverse array of substances than marijuana. If someone wants to legalize psychedelics, they may have to pick one substance and run with it. That is a clearer path to success than saying you’re going to legalize all psychedelics. I don’t think any state would be willing to do that at this point.

Framing its use as medical helps — that was certainly true with marijuana. It’s much easier to sell the public on legalizing something for medical use rather than recreational or spiritual use. Under the Controlled Substances Act, the only lawful use of a controlled substance is medical, so there was a natural inclination to frame marijuana use as medical.

Politically, it would be easier to convince a majority of the public to support a ballot initiative to legalize some psychedelics, like psilocybin, for medical use. It would be a simpler story than saying, “Some people here want to go out and trip.”

In 2023, the US Department of Health and Human Services, which is tasked by the Drug Enforcement Administration with reviewing the medical and scientific evidence for a drug’s scheduling, recommended reclassifying marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, indicating federal recognition of its accepted medical use. That move would open the door to federal approval of medical marijuana but keep it criminally controlled. Could that be a path for psychedelic reform?

If the Drug Enforcement Administration does reschedule marijuana, it would show that you could get this done at the federal level — but consider that the Controlled Substances Act was passed more than 50 years ago. Marijuana could still end up moving only one rung, to Schedule II, which is very tightly controlled — cocaine is there right now. My takeaway is: Don’t hold your breath waiting for the federal government to change its laws.

And for psychedelics, it’s more complicated. You’d need to make that same demonstration to the Food and Drug Administration — that the drug has medical uses — for each and every drug you were interested in. (The FDA evaluates a drug’s safety and medical efficacy, as well as potential for abuse, among other factors, in its analysis.)

Still, there’s at least a sign, now, that you can convince the federal government to lower the controls on some of these long-forbidden substances. But given how much time it’s taken and how limited that impact would be, it suggests you need to do something else — probably going through the states again and not the federal government.

To what extent is the Controlled Substances Act dictating the trajectory of psychedelic reform?

The Controlled Substances Act privileges medical use, which is going to frame the debate around these substances. But I think people are going to shoehorn in uses that are not genuinely medical uses of the drug.

People are trying to scientifically test these drugs, but ironically, the Controlled Substances Act makes that very difficult. If a drug is on Schedule I, to move it off you need clinical trials demonstrating that it’s effective at treating some medical condition. But conducting those medical trials is really difficult because it’s Schedule I.

The federal government wants to make sure that something someone says is going to be used in a clinical research trial is not sold on the black market. So it imposes special controls, which it could relax to make it easier for universities, hospitals and scientists to test the medical efficacy of different psychedelics.

Even though psychedelics are often discussed as an entire class of drugs, they differ in their chemistry, how they’re created and how they affect individuals who take them. How will that influence the way advocates approach reform?

At the federal level, even if you conduct mountains of research demonstrating that LSD has some accepted medical use, that won’t have any effect on whether to reschedule psilocybin. Politically, it may be difficult to form alliances in that situation between people who believe strongly in legalizing psilocybin versus those who support legalizing a different psychedelic drug.

At the state level, it could get tricky. Will there be enough people out there who are willing to support an initiative targeted at just one of these psychedelics? We don’t have much public opinion research on psychedelics in general, and certainly not on individual psychedelics, which may be the route that reformers need to take.

MDMA was granted “breakthrough therapy” status in order to be studied as part of treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, and the completion of a Phase 3 trial in fall 2023 means it could be approved by the FDA for this use as early as 2024. Would that require the drug to be rescheduled? And how would that change the trajectory for psychedelics overall at the federal level?

It would necessitate rescheduling. You can’t keep a drug on Schedule I if it has accepted medical use. Which other schedule it falls on depends on the relative harms and likelihood of abuse. But I’m not sure there are broader ramifications. The Controlled Substances Act calls for the scheduling of individual substances, rather than classes of substances, so the scheduling of MDMA has no implications for the scheduling of psilocybin.

What does the tension between state and federal psychedelics law look like?

It’s a bit like a chess match. The states can liberalize their laws and allow people to use, manufacture and distribute some psychedelics, such as psilocybin in Oregon, without fear of arrest from the state government.

The federal government could try to counter the states by making it very difficult for the states to regulate psychedelics. This was true in the early days of state marijuana law reforms. The states wanted to create a safe and heavily state-regulated supply system, but the federal government was threatening to crack down on suppliers, so states didn’t try to set up regulated supply systems. In California, for example, people set up enormous collectives that served tens of thousands of patients, but those suppliers weren’t regulated to the same degree they are now.

You saw state regulation take off only around 2009 when the Obama administration announced it would stop raiding medical marijuana distributors. But that was more than 12 years into state marijuana reforms. Prior to that, states said, “We’re going to call your bluff.… We’re not going to arrest patients. Instead, we’re going to tell patients to grow it themselves, get it from a friend or the black market.”

That’s less than ideal. The states didn’t want some 70-year-old terminal cancer patient having to grow their own medicine, but they said that’s better than threatening to arrest that patient. You might see a similar tit-for-tat in the psychedelics realm.

Oregon has tried to jump the gun a little bit with psilocybin. What they’re envisioning is a tightly regulated state supply system. You can’t buy it and use it at home at your leisure — you have to use it at a state-licensed psilocybin service center.

The problem with that is that it’s much easier for the federal government to shut down state-regulated suppliers because you’ve got a list of them, so it puts those suppliers in harm’s way. They can be arrested, prosecuted, thrown in prison for long terms and have their assets seized.

But if the federal government cracks down on those psilocybin service centers, Oregon might just lift its prohibition on making and distributing this drug. And then the federal government might come back to the table, as it eventually did with medical marijuana.

It’s a back-and-forth between the states and the federal government to figure out how much the federal government will tolerate.

What lessons have we learned from the early stages of psychedelic law reform?

Oregon passed Measure 109 back in fall 2020. It took three years for the first psilocybin service center to open. It takes time to figure out how to do this, especially for early adopters. Can we actually have a system where the state is looking over your shoulder while you’re taking this drug? Or is that going to backfire and is the federal government going to use that to crack down on these centers?

As long as the sky doesn’t fall and you don’t see some disasters from these early adopters, I think other states will warm to it. But the first few years are going to be slow going.

Are there indications yet about whether psychedelics will be able to gather the same kind of political backing that helped push marijuana reform?

I am deeply skeptical. If you look at marijuana, we’ve had the majority of Americans support legalization for recreational or adult use for 10 years and we’re just now getting some tepid indications that somewhere down the line the Biden administration might change federal law governing marijuana to allow for medical use.

It’s going to take a while before you get that sort of public support for psychedelics reform, if you ever get it, and you’d need that before whoever is in federal office 10 to 20 years from now actually embraces this.

The forecast at the federal level doesn’t sound favorable for reform advocates, but at the state level, do you think psychedelic reform is inevitable at this point?

Not necessarily. Psychedelics aren’t nearly as popular or familiar to the general public as marijuana is, so advocates of reforms will have a bigger job educating the public and convincing them that legalization is a good idea.

I don’t think we’re going to see a sudden rush to embrace psychedelics. You might see it in a few states like Oregon and California. Other states will wait on the sidelines and see how it works: Did they figure this out? Is it safe? Is it effective? Were they able to control it? Once you see that demonstration you might see some momentum pick up, especially if public support for psychedelics grows.

A decade from now, maybe seven or eight states will have legalized one psychedelic, probably psilocybin, ostensibly for therapeutic use but, in reality, for any use, as Oregon has done. And then maybe the federal government will reschedule one of these psychedelics. But this took 25 years for marijuana. It will probably be similar for psychedelics.