Your brain on LSD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
TORRANCE, Calif. (AP) - Psychiatrist Oscar Janiger, an early advocate of psychedelic drugs who was credited with turning on Cary Grant and numerous other celebrities to LSD, died Tuesday of kidney and heart failure. Janiger was 83.
Between 1954 and 1962, ``Oz,'' as he was known to friends, administered almost 3,000 doses of LSD to 1,000 volunteers. Among them were Grant, fellow actors Jack Nicholson and Rita Moreno, author Aldous Huxley and musician Andre Previn.
Janiger bought the drug, then legal, from Swiss pharmaceutical manufacturer Sandoz Laboratories and administered it at his Los Angeles office.
Although his work predated that of LSD guru Timothy Leary, he never gained widespread recognition for it.
Janiger, who took the drug 13 times himself, said he was interested in LSD's link to creativity and what he called the ability to access a state of crazy consciousness without losing control of one's surroundings.
In 1986, he formed the Albert Hofmann Foundation for psychedelic research, named after the chemist who first synthesized the drug.
He had abandoned his own LSD studies in 1962, however, after the federal government began investigating researchers. The drug was outlawed in the United States in 1966.
Born in New York City, Janiger, who was a cousin of poet Allen Ginsburg, moved to Los Angeles in 1950, setting up a private practice and later teaching at the University of California, Irvine.
While an associate professor of psychiatry at Irvine, he studied the connection between hormones and premenstrual depression in women.
Most recently, he was involved with a group studying dolphins in
their natural environment.
His is a life that was influential, in this case negatively, on our country and society as a whole to a much greater degree than would be recognized.
The use and advocacy of these drugs has been very influential in bringing about proponents for and a citizenry that accept ultra-liberalism, anti-Americanism, moral relativism and so many of the ills of our society and the "culture war."
What's ironic is Janiger probably meant well. Maybe.
I post this, surprised others didn't already, as an example of one of the many behind the scenes, relatively unknown lives that have contributed so much to the weakening and downward trend in our nation's society and culture.
Unknown people can make big impacts.
It is also an example of another utopian vision tried to be put in place in the real world. Janiger and his co-believers thought they could turn the world and and make a better more beautiful tolerant world if everyone could just undergo the illuminating mystical experiences they believed these drugs elicited in them.
Ping, bing, bang, bump.
I post this, surprised others didn't already, as an example of one of the many behind the scenes, relatively unknown lives that have contributed so much to the weakening and downward trend in our nation's society and culture.
How exactly did this man weaken the nation's society?
seems ole' Cary Grant didn't think so
How exactly did this man weaken the nation's society?
The rapid and pervasive use of drugs like LSD and others spearheaded by Janiger and others is a blight that we have never recovered from and probably never will.
Modern liberalism was shaped by these 60's countercultural ideas more than anything else.
The passive acquiesence of society to just about anything is a result of this as well.
LSD was actually a proven effective adjunct to treatment of alcoholism before the alarmist looneys got ahold of it and started spreading the typical Chicken-Little crap.
I can tell you from personal experience that in certain people it is an extraordinary vehicle for self-relfection and change for the better. YMMV.
The rapid and pervasive use of drugs like LSD and others spearheaded by Janiger and others is a blight that we have never recovered from and probably never will.
Can you actually quantify that statement with real numbers instead of using blandishments of such wide latitude?
Frankly, I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.
The "...blight we have never recovered from and probably never will" is Socialism!
LSD is morally neutral...like 'Wild Turkey'.
Interesting.
"Born in New York City, Janiger, who was a cousin of poet Allen Ginsburg...
Hm, I always knew deviancy ran in families more or less.
If you want to support your observation of tallhappy, cruise on over to the "Europe Goes to Pot" thread. Frankly, I agree with your assessment. Oh, and by the way, he called me irrational. LOL!!
I suggest everybody should trip once in thier life. You will never look at things the same again, expansive is the word !
LSD was actually a proven effective adjunct to treatment of alcoholism before the alarmist looneys got ahold of it...
Yeah yeah yeah. It was a miracle drug. It would cure alcoholism, homosexuality, bring about racial harmony and world peace.
Hippy utopians were not the loonies but rational staid conservatives were.
Everything you know is wrong.
There's a sucker born every minute.
Frankly, I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.
Had you heard of Janiger before today?
Hm, I always knew deviancy ran in families more or less.
You mean like George Bush's juicehound son?
LSD is morally neutral...like 'Wild Turkey'.
Questionable.
But, it has made brainwashing to the socialist view much easier and has reinforced the views of the socialist crusaders.
I suggest everybody should trip once in thier life. You will never look at things the same again, expansive is the word !
You understand.
Your wish pretty much is true.
This is how Janiger had such a large impact (not him alone).
But your idea that it is a positive for either the individual or society is where I differ.
It greatly reinforces all the liberalism and socialism and moral relativism that is now establishment today.
If you have zero experience in psychopharmacology and/or the use of LSD, you sir, are the sucker.
Yes, in fact I had heard of Janiger before today.
I wrote a paper on hallucinogenic pharmacology several years ago, and encountered his work then. The net is full of it.
If you have zero experience in psychopharmacology and/or the use of LSD, you sir, are the sucker.
Why?
Interesting to see all the closet hippies come out of the wood work.
You're an idiot.
I wrote a paper on hallucinogenic pharmacology several years ago, and encountered his work then. The net is full of it.
Where'd you publish it?
You're an idiot.
Why?
Where does your hostility come from?
Where'd you publish it?
I didn't.
I submitted it... for a grade.
I got an A.
But, it has made brainwashing to the socialist view much easier and has reinforced the views of the socialist crusaders.
Take a drug, become a commie??
You're an idiot.
Why?
My guess, is some sort of genetic deficiency.
Where does your hostility come from?
From idiots.
Your wish pretty much is true.
So pretty much everyone has done LSD once in their life?
OWK is right, you are an idiot.
Everything you know is wrong.
If you're so sure of that, how 'bout giving me this week's lottery numbers. I sure could use the $16M.
So pretty much everyone has done LSD once in their life?
Or X or mushrooms or smoked dope (not as strong).
I am not sure where you grew up, but I grew up in the USA.
I know few people who haven't.
Please stick with sucker. He brought the word up, and I believe it's more applicable.
"You're an idiot."
A compelling argument, certainly.
Oh, come on. This one is easy: Guns don't kill people, drugs do. Or if you're a liberal, drugs don't kill people, guns do.
See? Some inanimate objects are inherently evil while others are not.
Everything you know is wrong.
If you're so sure of that, how 'bout giving me this week's lottery numbers. I sure could use the $16M.
The "Everything you know is wrong" is a quote from the 70's counter cultural viewpoint, specifically the Firesign Theater.
I was lampooning the hippy beliefs being presented here.
It's irony and sarcasm.
You said it!
Hey, hey, hey. Go easy on Tallhappy. He/she sounds just a little pent up - could maybe benefit from a little "vacation."
The rapid and pervasive use of drugs like LSD and others spearheaded by Janiger and others is a blight that we have never recovered from and probably never will.
Now I know that illegal drugs were pumped into the '60 youth counter-culture by Soviet agents and the American Communist party for nefarious purposes. That is fact. What is disagreed on is exactly what those nefarious purposes were. In hindsite, it would appear to be the destruction of the Constitution Of the U.S. via the War on Drugs, that the KGB had in mind, and have gotten.
Can't say it really changed my conservative thinking much but it did open up a new, 7th sense, in the way I look at things.
Exactly...
And the fundamental difference between authoritarians of the left flavor, and authoritarians of the right flavor, are the inanimate objects they choose to blame for their problems.
for all you drug warriors out there, i would heartily recomend Aldous Huxley's "The Doors of Perception" . wont change your mind any, but will give you some background, at least. The "crazy conscious" he is talking about is a poor term, perhaps the best he could come up with in his day. The Military (thats right, our govmint) thought originally that LSD could produce a clinical state of psychosis, that could then be studied in a controlled environ. That of course turned out to be nonsense, as did their (our govmint's) attempts at harnessing the drug for a type of truth serom, and as a drug to be utilized in "brainwashing" experiements. all of which failed, because LSD is none of those. When our govmint scrooges couldnt harness it, were baffled by it (it actually raised IQ scores, seemed to promote instances of enhanced perceptual powers, (ESP?) and did not seem to produce any lasting motor/cognitive disfunction, they made it illegal. (anything the govmint cant understand, they promptly ban) Its a shame that Duke University could not continue its studies linking LSD to perception in humans and intelligence. Leary did a great disservice to the drug by starting out with somewhat of a scientific hypothesis, but he got sidetracked by the social implications and berkely party scene of the time, and turned out to be nothing but a "turn-on drop out" advocate. After much personal experience i conclude that although it is a widely abused drug, in the right hands and in the right conditions, can lead to greatly increased understanding of both the spirutual and physical existence of mankind. Peace
Never heard of him....he obviously didn't have quite the impact that Tim Leary did, who I have heard of.
Tell me about hallucinogenic pharmacology.
WileyCoyote22 specifically responded to you about LSD. Mushrooms, X or pot do not do the same thing.
I don't disagree with you, but I just did it for fun. And HOW! And if this Janiger administered almost 3,000 doses, he was far behind a couple of guys I knew in college (not in the 60s).
Radical left wing political movements were alive and kicking long before the popularization of LSD. They reached their peak of activity about the same time THE US GOVERNMENT unleashed LSD on the masses (for more information I recommend reading Acid Dreams). And so of course simple minds linked them together, as you have done here.
The use of LSD for therauputic or spiritual purposes has nothing to do with a bunch of kids doseing on it for kicks. The prohibition enacted in response to the profound ignorance by people just like you has relegated this substance to primarily just that use.
In clinical settings LSD was shown to be very promising for treating alcoholism, drug addiction, homosexuality and other sexual perversions, reduceing criminality as well as many other areas.
From a research standpoint LSD was a boon for researches in understanding how the mind works.
Further it has profound spiritual implications that you will most likely never understand.
Can't say it really changed my conservative thinking much but it did open up a new, 7th sense, in the way I look at things.
Hey, I like the fact that you are not defensive or puerile or hostile.
Impressive, thanks.
Are you sure, though, that your "conservative thinking" didn't change or that you do think conservatively?
Do you think most people do not change to a more liberal worldview after taking drugs like this.
Yes there is documentation of that, also the late Tim Leary used psychedelics (psyclobin and LSD) to treat criminals (some 80% of whom never went back to jail) and homosexuals to change their orientation with some success. There were also studies showing IQ increases of 10 pts from the U of MD in the early 60's I believe. I try to locate sources for you to reference.
for all you drug warriors out there, i would heartily recomend Aldous Huxley's "The Doors of Perception"
Exactly -- yes. This proves my point. It is the sort of liberal goofy claptrap that has become the liberal establishment's mainstream views.
I also recomend "Acid Dreams". Very, very eye-opening. I love the part about when they were doing the experiments with it in, San Francisco, I think, and they would put LSD on the door knobs and handles, t.v. knobs, so that all of the "subjects" would be getting trippy and not know what happened. I think they were doing experiments on U.S. military in brothels or something, too. Very good book.
You're an idiot
I watched your work on texaggie79 at the other thread. Good work.
Why the personal attacks here? are you losing the argument? Argue with reason - it is your MO is it not?
Miss Cleo done be calling you, eh...
If one is against these type of drugs,its seems to set some people off on some kind of abusive response. Ok, if people should be quite free to express an opinion; what is their problem? It is just like someone pointing at all the successful Hollywood types, that drugs do not destroy-let me hint, that manic little "comic" who had something to do with the illfated John Belushi- a casual encounter maybe? Then ignoring all the fall out, the troubled rock singers, Joplin and that Doors guy,dead in France. Keep your ****** LSD, I will take a beer and a shot myself, though I dont get mad because others would vomit at the thought- keep on hitting em pal!
Allow me. LSD blocks the reuptake of serotonin in the brain. In other words, the stuff that can make you feel good, dream, and regulate your sensory perception is just swimming around in your brain. As such, the drug itself does not permanently alter the physiology of the brain. Ecstasy, on the other hand, destroys serotonin receptors with prolonged use, causing all sorts of nasty problems, including an inability to enjoy LSD.
Do you think most people do not change to a more liberal worldview after taking drugs like this.
When I was a kid, I tried acid approximately 10 times. I stopped doing it because I stopped enjoying it. During the time I was doing it, I came to the realization that liberals were enslaving blacks with social programs and that the talk of helping them out of bondage was a lie designed to buy their votes in perpetuity.
That was what this 15 year old wannabe hippy came up with under the influence of LSD. As someone else has said, your mileage may vary.
Yeah yeah yeah. It was a miracle drug. It would cure alcoholism, homosexuality, bring about racial harmony and world peace.
No, it is simply clinical fact that before it's prohibition it was cited in numerous studies as effective in treatment of alcohol and alcohol-related depression.
That you have to load all these other pie-in-the-skyism's of your own creation in with shows the paucity of intellectual weight of your position.
Sucker.
Mine is published: Journal of Abnormal Psychology, May, 1982 "Hallucinogenic Drugs and Perception in Humans" Butler University, Indpls.,In. I also handed it in, senior thesis. I got a "B+" LOL....
The use of LSD for therauputic or spiritual purposes has nothing to do with a bunch of kids doseing on it for kicks.
Of course I read Acid Dreams many years ago.
I disagree 100% with your statement above.
The elites using it for "spiritual" purposes were the same people in or from the left wing movements you were talking about.
Janiger was Ginsberg's cousin. I don't know about Janiger, but Ginsburg was close to being a red diaper baby and I'll bet Janiger comes from a similar political background.
I am not arguing any conspiracy theories, I am just looking back at how things have developed in our nation and the incredibly negative role the use of drugs such as this have played.
From a research standpoint LSD was a boon for researches in understanding how the mind works.
Who can you reference for me, or what was learned that stands out the most?
Actually many realize that you are responsible for your own actions. This viewpoint isn't condusive to liberal thought. This is also why the govt were afraid of these substances, they threathened the worldview of the big govt NWO types.
Do you think most people do not change to a more liberal worldview after taking drugs like this.
No, not at all, for me LSD was about perception at the world around me. It's not like after I did it my value system or prejudices changed. The best way I can sum up the experience would be to use this analogy. Its the differece between looking at the world around you through a kalidescope.
According to the information in this article, he stopped his research 4 years prior to the prohibition of LSD by the government.
With the prohibition of tobacco looming, I would suggest to any researchers who study the possible benefits of nicotine that their work be immediately halted. Scientists in this area are obviously closet hippy socialists who are contributing to the cultural decay of future generations.
We must constantly try to to predict what the government will ban next, so that we can plan our lives accordingly and preserve our legacy.
I disagree. I have tripped over 100 times (peyote, mescaline, psycilocybin (still cant spell it!) and LSD. I am as conservative as they come. Private schooling, kids in private christian school, registered republican. economic and social and moral conservative.
Leto, problem is, all these claims about therapeutic benefits were exagerated.
Believing Leary and others is all too common. It is why I said there's a sucker born every minute.
Never heard of him....he obviously didn't have quite the impact that Tim Leary did, who I have heard of.
Yeah. See, he had the impact on Leary. It is an exponential type of thing.
Do you think most people do not change to a more liberal worldview after taking drugs like this.
Does this happen during a full moon? At midnight?
Seriously, how would something like that happen?
Further it has profound spiritual implications that you will most likely never understand.
Duh, hey Cletus, whass thiz spirtcheel impicayshuns?
You talk too big words perfesser.
Why did the big govt types react so violently to a susstance that had been around for 20 years and was showing promise for therapy?
Anyone who unquestioningly believes the govt and their propaganda is a sucker.
Good article Tallhappy. Thanks for posting.
I can tell you havent read the book. It had nothing to do with social issues....oh well, one is never so blind as one who will not see (or even look)
We must constantly try to to predict what the government will ban next, so that we can plan our lives accordingly and preserve our legacy.
LOL! Quote of the day?
Allow me. LSD blocks the reuptake of serotonin in the brain.
Wrong.
Close.
You are thinking of Prozac. It is an uptake inhibitor. LSD is not.
I am just looking back at how things have developed in our nation and the incredibly negative role the use of drugs such as this have played.
Once again, can you quantify your statement vis a vis LSD?
How, specifically, and to what degree, specifically, has LSD been responsible for the underpinnings of our nation being somehow, magically weakened?
although it is a widely abused drug, in the right hands and in the right conditions, can lead to greatly increased understanding of both the spirutual and physical existence of mankind.
I thoroughly agree.
Psychedelic drugs turn good young Americans into communists!
Can you point to any real danger from the use of LSD? The chromosome damage theory has been discredited, as have many of the old urban legends about innocent kids driven insane by acid. Also, it's nearly impossible to take enough to kill a human being (unless one did something extraordinarily stupid, like drinking an entire vial of liquid LSD). So where is the danger, except to that very small percentage of the population prone to serious mental disorders (who would be fools to use any mind altering drugs in the first place)?
I'd submit that you're confusing the intellectual climate of the time with the effects of these particular drugs. Socialism was popular not because of marijuana or LSD, but because the intellectual class in large still had an unreasonably rosy view of communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. Slavish devotion to unworkable theories isn't a by-product of drug use, it's the result of the Ivory Tower syndrome (as anyone who's had a flaky Marxist professor can attest).
Sure, some of the era's LSD enthusiasts overstated their case (I doubt many people would argue that it's instant chemical enlightenment ), but we still don't know what positive benefits it and other psychedelics could have in psychiatry because they were banned, based on nothing more than hysterical fear of the counter culture, before enough research into these areas could be conducted.
LSD and other psychedelics are not physically addictive, are relatively safe, and have untapped potential as tools for understanding and possibly even healing the human mind. In my opinion, they should at least be resheduled to allow for more meaningful research.
"'Doors of Perception' = liberal goofy claptrap."
You're fake.
Another thing about LSD, its a very spirtual experience and if anything made me believe in god that much more.
I would recommend above all others PIHKAL
It is an extraordinary book, but one that will be completely lost on those with their minds already made up.
Ecstasy, on the other hand, destroys serotonin receptors with prolonged use, causing all sorts of nasty problems, including an inability to enjoy LSD.
Ecstacy and LSD most likely work the same way, as serotinin receptor agonists.
Ecstacy is probably more harmfull physically because of its epoxide ring.
An analog of ectsasy is mescaline from peyote. Those are phenyalkylamines, related to dopamine, and the epinephrines as the endogenous transitters.
LSD, on the other hand is an indolealkylamine, as is psilocin, the active ingredient from magic mushrooms, and DMT. Serotonin is an indolealkylamine and is the endogenous transmitter in the nervous system.
Pharmacologically, these compounds, idole or phenyl based share actvity on a type of serotonin recptor designated the 2c.
That is probably their mechanism of action for causing the psychological effects they do.
Certain compounds that block the re-uptake of serotonin from the synaptic cleft are used as antidepressants. That class is called SSRI, or selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors. You mixed up that class of compounds with the psychedelic drugs.
Do you think most people do not change to a more liberal worldview after taking drugs like this.
No. But one thing it can do is to help you let go of mindless stereo-types like this.
Mine is published: Journal of Abnormal Psychology, May, 1982 "Hallucinogenic Drugs and Perception in Humans" Butler University, Indpls.,In. I also handed it in, senior thesis. I got a "B+" LOL....
Funny how that works.
Back when I was an undergraduate I wrote an article for an Anthropology of Religion class having to do with psychopharmacology and got essentially a failing grade from the TA. She said it was horrible and not appropriate and showed a serious writing problem as well.
I though it was pretty good, so I went to the prof and asked him to read it.
He have me an A.
"Slippery slope arguments are always stupid. Please stop making them. What people think they mean by "slippery slope" is that the principle at the top of the slope is indistinguishable from the principle at the bottom of the slope. That's a bad principle argument, not a "slippery slope" argument.
"For a slippery slope argument to work, what is at the bottom of the slope must be more horrifying than what is at the top of the slope. Obviously, therefore, there's a difference between the top and the bottom. If you can see a difference, so can the law. That's how we end up with exceptions to general rules. "At this very moment, for example, you are prohibited from engaging in speech that: expropriates the official NBC logo, reveals Coca-Cola's secret formula, defames a private person, would likely incite violence, unduly exploits someone else's work, is a false boast about a product, gives investment advice without registering with the SEC, is too loud, or rebroadcasts Hugo Zacchini's entire human cannonball act (see Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.).
"And yet somehow the dark night of fascism has not descended over America. Indeed, no one gives these speech exceptions a moment's thought. They are not sufficiently counterintuitive to tweak the pseudo-intellectual instinct.
"Dalton's journal is obscene -- an exception to free speech with a longer pedigree than many other exceptions. If criminalizing Dalton's journal today means the thought police will be confiscating Republican Party pamphlets tomorrow, why didn't prohibiting the Gay Olympics from using the Olympic trademark do the same?"--Ann Coulter
"And don't give me the now-we'll-have-to-regulate-fatty-foods slippery slope argument. Precisely because you can see a difference in eating a hamburger and smoking crack means there is a huge difference between the top of the slope and the bottom -- which is why pure slippery slope arguments are always stupid. "--Ann again
Maybe you were thinking of Prozac, I was not.
What do you suppose LSD does? I believe I am correct.
No, it is simply clinical fact that before it's prohibition it was cited in numerous studies as effective in treatment of alcohol and alcohol-related depression.
Cite them, then.
You are basing this on things you read by LSD prosyltizers, like Leary and Janiger.
That you have to load all these other pie-in-the-skyism's of your own creation in with shows the paucity of intellectual weight of your position.
Sucker.
Go back and read Leary and others.
Read Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered by Grinspoon and a co author whose name I forget.
I don't think you are familiar with the literature and the polemics.
To self,just to emphasise the point. Unfortunately do not have the time to get the exact data. There is no question that I have the rough facts. Massive scandal unearthed in Canada about twenty years ago. Persons that checked in to a mental hospital for depression were treated with LSD. I am fairly certain that a doctor who also had some advice from some clandestine government agency including possibly the CIA experimented on innocent people who were not informed. Just in case anyone thinks I am making this up, the Provincial Government were sued because of this. Now for the heavy and irrefutable hit. A prominent member of the New Democratic Party in power- I think it was Saskatchewan or Manitoba, had evidence that his mother was experimented on. I believe that considerable damages were paid, if not claimed on this Canadian scandal--- yep, checked with the esteemed liberal lady of the house and she confirms---- it was LSD. Oh yeah, plaintiffs claimed their minds were damaged beyond repair.
His is a life that was influential, in this case negatively, on our country and society as a whole to a much greater degree than would be recognized.
Oh, the broken lives and the wasted years brought on by those who championed psychedelic drugs to our culture! Many could handle them, some flipped out completely and became psychotic, but none benefitted from these drugs. The New York Times and Newsweek wrote glowing reviews of the pleasures of "tripping" which encouraged many of our youth to take the wrong path.
Are these facilitators of cultural decline and personal demise (or in Mr. Janiger's case, was he) sorry for what they (he) did?
Oh, I almost forgot, the concept of blame does not exist in today's society.
there are drug warriors on this site that mistakenly (and psychiatrists do it too!) label ritalin and prozac and their ilk as "psychotropic" hah- take a tab of prozac on tuesday, then take a hit of acid on weds, then tell me they are in the same "psychotropic" class- bull shit. I hate it when people who have no first hand experience try to tell me what I know....
there are drug warriors on this site that mistakenly (and psychiatrists do it too!) label ritalin and prozac and their ilk as "psychotropic" hah- take a tab of prozac on tuesday, then take a hit of acid on weds, then tell me they are in the same "psychotropic" class- bull shit. I hate it when people who have no first hand experience try to tell me what I know....
I disagree. I have tripped over 100 times (peyote, mescaline, psycilocybin (still cant spell it!) and LSD. I am as conservative as they come. Private schooling, kids in private christian school, registered republican. economic and social and moral conservative
Questions:
One, why are you conservative?
two, how common do you think this is. I would think if what you are saying is true, you are a miniscule minority.
Were you always conservative?
You're an idiot.
Bet he doesn't even like cheese [;-)
although it is a widely abused drug, in the right hands and in the right conditions, can lead to greatly increased understanding of both the spirutual and physical existence of mankind.
I thoroughly agree.
Interesting.
I think the above is a total scam.
I know a lot of people believe it, but it is one of the greatest scams in history, to my mind.
Good article Tallhappy. Thanks for posting.
You are welcome.
I feel strange not being attacked in a post.
Thanks.
Oh yeah, plaintiffs claimed their minds were damaged beyond repair.
Guess it depends on what your meaning of damaged is. If done once or twice I do not see much damage, its repeated use that can harm because the drug does stay with you for a very long time. The mere smoking of a joint can bring the whole experience back even years later. But its not noticeable unless you ingest more psychoactive ingrediants.
I would recommend above all others PIHKAL
I wouldn't.
Janiger bought the drug, then legal, from Swiss pharmaceutical manufacturer Sandoz Laboratories and administered it at his Los Angeles office.
Now that must have been some clear water.
As for the research, I'm not well versed on the hard science aspects of it, because I'm not that interested. The research on LSD that has impacted me the most is in the understanding of myself.
But like I said, you will likely never understand and that's ok. You are compelled to follow your religion as I am mine. :)
But look at the hostility here for the view point you understand and share.
And these are supposed to be conservatives at free republic.
Cite them, then.
You are basing this on things you read by LSD prosyltizers, like Leary and Janiger.
Utter crap. I believe in referencing and understanding the hard science behind claims, Einstein, so chew on these for a bit while you contemplate the constipated nature of your contentions:
Abramson, Harold A., M.D. [editor]:
THE USE OF LSD IN PSYCHOTHERAPY AND ALCOHOLISM.
New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967.
Abuzzahab, F.S., Sr.; B.J. Anderson.
"A Review of LSD Treatment in Alcoholism."
INTERNATIONAL PHARMACOPSYCHIATRY, 6:223-235, 1971.
Grof, S.; R.A. Soskin; W.A. Richards; A.A. Kurland.
"DPT as an Adjunct in Psychotherapy of Alcoholics."
INTERNATIONAL PHARMACOPSYCHIATRY, 8:104-115, 1973.
Hoffer, Abram.
"Treatment of Alcoholism with Psychedelic Therapy."
In Bernard Aaronson & Humphry Osmond [editors]:
PSYCHEDELICS: THE USES AND IMPLICATIONS OF HALLUCINOGENIC DRUGS,
pp.357-366. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1970.
Osmond, Humphry, M.R.C.P., D.P.M.
"Alcoholism: A Personal View of Psychedelic Treatment."
In Richard E. Hicks, M.D. & Paul Jay Fink, M.D. [editors]:
PSYCHEDELIC DRUGS, pp.217-225. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1967.
Roy, Chunilal, M.B.B.S., D.P.M.
"Indian Peyotists and Alcohol."
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 130(3):329-330, 1973.
Savage, Charles, M.D.
"LSD, Alcoholism and Transcendence."
JOURNAL OF NERVOUS AND MENTAL DISEASE, 135:429-435, 1962.
Aaaaaaaand just in case you too busy to be bothered to actually check them out, here's a little online reference for ya, sport.
Maybe you were thinking of Prozac, I was not.
What do you suppose LSD does? I believe I am correct.
See 78.
Another thing about LSD, its a very spirtual experience and if anything made me believe in god that much more.
I was an athiest (and a socalist liberal for that matter) before my experience with psychedelic drugs. Now I am neither.
To this day I still wonder if the visuals that I saw just looking at a flower or an object are not always there and that it was the drug that allowed me to see them.
I wouldn't.
Too many words over three syllables?
One, why are you conservative?
Well you didn't ask me, but can I answer? I think in the context of a perfect world liberalism is compassionate, it is the promise of loveing and helping others.
In the context of some understanding of human nature, conservatism is compassionate, becuase it accepts the failings of man and the importance of responsibility.
Liberalism works against human nature, conservatism (I mean real conservatism here, not the psuedo-liberal brand that is dominant in the United States) works with human nauture, and is ultimately the most compassionate political philosophy in my humble opinion.
what he called the ability to access a state of crazy
consciousness without losing control of one's surroundings.
He wasn't taking a big enough hit. Control
of one's surroundings went away after maybe
the first half hour, or you else you had been
ripped off.
You are one serious stoner.
I like that, seriousness.
The idea of psycheldelic drigs as cures was popular and stil is. Now Xtasy has replaced LSD as the magic drug.
But a handfull of articles consisting mainly of anecdotal evidence is interesting but hardly conclusive.
I commend you on your dilligence.
I think you are buying snake oil, though.
Here's something of interest. Apparently, some sufferers of cluster headaches (migrainous neuralgia) have reported they can prevent or even halt attacks by administering sub-hallucinogenic doses of LSD or psilocybin. Here's an example to that effect:
"Note to Dr Urban of Diamond Headache Clinic
Sirs,
Just a quick question. I am a 30 year sufferer of episodic cluster headaches. Recently at www.clusterheadches.com a gentleman from Scotland came to the message board. He claimed that he has prevented his annual cluster from happening by taking a one time dose of psilocybin at a level equal to 1/4 of the "recreational" dose. He claimed that this not only stopped the current headache in it's tracks but also ended his cluster. He further stated that to test his theory, he induced a headache with alcohol, consummed his potion of psilocybin and aborted the headache. I realize that psilocybin is closely related to 5-HT. Have you ever heard of a claim like this before? Have there ever been any studies conducted on the effects of psilocybin on cluster or even migraine for that matter?
The interesting part of this is that this claim brought forth another gentleman in our group OUCH (Organization for Understanding Cluster Headaches) who is a few months overdue for his cluster and also consumed psilocybin about the time he was due to start his cluster.
I am not interested in legalizing any drugs. However, after 30 years of dealing with the torture of CH I am want to grab at straws. Any information you could share on the psilocybin/5-HT relationship is appreciated.
Bob P.
Dear Mr. Pahlow:
Similarly, methysergide (sonsert) is a potent 5-HT2 antagonist and is a congener of LSD. Sonsert has been approved as an effective drug for prophylaxis of migraine and cluster headaches. I have not found any other information or studies testing psilocybin effectiveness in cluster or other headaches. But, there is evidence of psilocybin effecting 5-HT receptors and thus theoretically the process of headaches.
Thank you for your inquiry.
Dr. G. J. Urban, M.D. Diamond Headache Clinic in Chicago, ILL"
Source: clusterheadaches.com message board
Granted, this is not conclusive evidence, but it does indicate that these drugs are not without potential medical uses.
Your e-mail caught my attention. I have a special interest in cluster headaches, and I have seen hundreds of cluster patients. The claim of the gentleman from Scotland is very interesting, and maybe not so impossible.
I wouldn't [reccommend reading PHIKAL].
Too many words over three syllables?
You a funny comedian.
OK, fast, what does the P stand for in the book PHIKAL?
Then explain it.
Control
of one's surroundings went away after maybe
the first half hour, or you else you had been
ripped off.
Hehe, you got that right, the whole experience was about letting go and just trying to understand your thoughts and what you were seeing. I never had what I'd call a bad trip, I would say that anyone who did was afraid of what was happening to them and fought it thus creating the bad trip. LSD is not for control freaks, no way!
To this day I still wonder if the visuals that I saw just looking at a flower or an object are not always there and that it was the drug that allowed me to see them.
Well what your senses tell you is what is needed for the animal to survive. We don't sense radio waves or the infrared. We do sense the visual spectrum of light, and vibration, and heat energy.
But how we sense these things is an abstraction that has little to do with the reality of what these things are. So yes, it alters how they are sensed. Is it any less real? I would argue that no it's not.
So in a sense, yes, what you see when you are under the influence of a psychedelic drug is allways there. It's just looking at it in a different light. And for me, I don't look at anything else the same anymore. For me and I beleive many others, the psychedelic experience brings a deeper appreciation for the beauty of God's creation.
You are one serious stoner.
I like that, seriousness.
You are seriously mistaken if you think I indulge of inebriants of any nature. A most unwarranted assumption.
The idea of psycheldelic drigs as cures was popular and stil is. Now Xtasy has replaced LSD as the magic drug.
Not one of those studies makes the claim that LSD is a cure, which you would notice if you ever bothered to read them. It is an adjunct to a successfull treatment.
But a handfull of articles consisting mainly of anecdotal evidence is interesting but hardly conclusive.
They cite real instances of real people actually taking the drug in conjunction with therapy, and follow-ups to their state after the treatment. Hardly anecdotal.
I commend you on your dilligence.
I think you are buying snake oil, though.
Intellectual inquiry of the widest possible latitude is a prerequisite to any legitimate research, a concept you seem utterly unfamiliar with.
I suggest aquainting yourself with the studies themselves and then coming to a decision.
Anything less is dishonest, and hardly the hallmark of a student of science.
One, why are you conservative?
Concerning that question, I kind of meant in the context of being a doper.
I remember this one fellow way back when who was a young Dad and was doing a lot of cocaine and he was dealing it a bit.
And he like Reagan, was all gung ho for him.
It made no sense.
I see in this thread, both those who claim to have used psychadelics and defend their use as therapeutic (and fun), and those who claim not to have used psychadelics and condemn their use as promoting the downside of liberalism of the 60's.
There's really an easy explanation for all of this. LSD was initially distributed in the US by the CIA, and from there it went from psychiatric therapists (ie Janiger, Leary) and hospitals (ie Kesey in Cuckoo's Nest) to the streets (ie Owsley, Grateful Dead). It spread from the "elites" as well as the "deranged" to the "artists" and became popularized as part of the 60's "youth culture" by no less than Life Magazine in 1966 and various television shows circa 1967.
LSD also coincidentally arrived at the same time that color television did. So it was associated with the bright and saturated color look of early color TV like Batman, The Monkees, and Laugh-In which were all targeted as a "youth" audience. The often-subversive nature of the humor in these shows was presented as a reaction to the earlier conformist messages in television programming from the 50's through the mid-60's.
It's a historical reality, that whenever the medium of communication achieves a substantial technical leap, that society as a result also changes. Consider the effect of the Gutenberg Bible which brought the Reformation, and the Internet more recently as well. When there is substantial and rapid change in a society, the elites react by bad-mouthing and banning the new practices until they feel they have them in control. Which is what happened to LSD in 1966 and afterwards, and how the youth culture was presented to the rest of the nation for many years after.
This is not to take a position on psychadelics, but to illustrate the wide chasm of reactions between those who say they have tried them and those who say they haven't.
Ok. Control. Yes, you have to be willing to go with the flow, it's not allways a plesant experience for anal control freak types (but perhaps it's the cure, lol).
But you don't loose control in the sense that you don't know what you are doing. You are in control of your actions, you're just not in control of the rest of the universe and for those who really thought they were, they find themselves in for bit of a surprise. :)
Here's something of interest. Apparently, some sufferers of cluster headaches (migrainous neuralgia) have reported they can prevent or even halt attacks by administering sub-hallucinogenic doses of LSD or psilocybin. Here's an example to that effect:
I believe that. I think there is sound neurochemical theory to explain it.
hey research, do some research. LSD was "discovered" by a scientist in the lab working on some ergot (sp?) he inadvertently absorbed some of the liquid, and the rest is history....the CIA? those guys are too stupid to find their ass with both hands....they were trying to use LSD as a "truth serom" and a "brainwashing" aid. LOL....idiots.
It stands for "Phenetilamines".
Some 2-CT-2 or possibly 2-CB should clear up that comprehension problem you seem to be having.
Intellectual inquiry of the widest possible latitude is a prerequisite to any legitimate research, a concept you seem utterly unfamiliar with.
Look man, Grof lost any credibility (I think he never should have had any) when he started actually propsoing that LSD user were actually time travelling in one of his books I read.
Most of the other authors you cite also were rather fringey.
I think you are placing faith foremost in your conclusions above science.
Hoffman discovered it, but it was the CIA which distributed it (at first) in the 1950's -- That's what I wrote.
LSD is morally neutral...like 'Wild Turkey'.
I am sure that all those people that ended up with their face splattered on the sidewalk would agree with you.
I disagree. I have tripped over 100 times (peyote, mescaline, psycilocybin (still cant spell it!) and LSD. I am as conservative as they come. Private schooling, kids in private christian school, registered republican. economic and social and moral conservative.
Wowzer! You sound like me < g > Except that my number is twice yours, and I quit being a Republican about 5 years ago. Didn't do the private schooling thing myself, either, but my daughter is, also private Christian school.
I am sure that all those people that ended up with their face splattered on the sidewalk would agree with you.
Ah, yes, the old wive's tales about epidemics of people tripping and jumping off buildings, thinking they could stop freight trains, were bulletproof, could fight lions, blahblahblahblah.
We now return you to your regularly programmed logic and reason.
It stands for "Phenetilamines".
No.
I literally laughed out loud when reading your response.
It stands for phenylalkylamines.
Phenyl is the basic ring structure of the class of drugs Shulgin fried his brains with -- it's a phenol ring, benzene with a hydroxy substituent.
It has the alkylamine arm (ammonia attached to a two carbon chain), hence a phenylalkylamine.
Anyhow, I guess these words are just two small for your great intellect.
although it is a widely abused drug, in the right hands and in the right conditions, can lead to greatly increased understanding of both the spirutual and physical existence of mankind.
And you are the one to determine who is "right" to use the drug?
I would have to agree with your hypothesis that the stimuli is always there, we just cant PERCIEVE it under normal circumstances. If it is raining, and I take LSD, does it change the reality? does it make it rain harder? or quit? of course not. What we ingest does not alter reality one bit. But our perception, ah. So we come then to the point where we ask, did the drug make me conjure up a reality that is not actually there? or did it merely lower my threshold of perception (huxley, the doors of perception) so that I now can see things AS THEY REALLY ARE? theory has it that at one time on mans distant past we had far greater powers of perception but what with the struggle to survive we eventually filtered out the stimulus and reality that we didnt need to survive. I have given it much thought, study and personal research. I say it lowers our thresholds to perception of already existing stimulus (by changing/altering minute brain chemistry) and increases our SENSITIVITY to external reality/stimulii. Peace.
It stands for phenylalkylamines.
You are correct. My bad for sloppy/rushed typing.
And PS - it's been 25 years this year since I touched any of it :) But as a hard rock lead guitarist in the 70s, I pretty much lived there.
yes, the old wive's tales about epidemics of people tripping and jumping off buildings
Old wives tales, but of course Stanislov Grof is the epitome of cool objectivty rationaity and scientific method.
You are a hoot.
Tell us your recipe for "Phenetilamines".
Ever read Intoxication by Ron Siegal?
To this day I still wonder if the visuals that I saw just looking at a flower or an object are not always there and that it was the drug that allowed me to see them.
They were never there. Your mind was just warped.
man oh man, sandoz labs. one drop and presto! the key to the door would appear in your hand, (you had it all along!) and the door would swing wide, and the universes secrets and mysteries would be yours for exploring.... wow....
and just what experience do you have to say that it is a scam? you have several people on here who disagree, whom i can tell have actual, first hand experience. in short? have you ever tripped? if not, shut your pie hole moron. i am tire of you....
You sound like Ram Dass or an old hippy.
Are you sure you are conservative?
You're an idiot.
PKB.
(Or, the true idiots on a thread always seem to be the first ones to start throwing ad hominem remarks when they run out of ideas. Think of it as a cyber-tantrum).
Old wives tales, but of course Stanislov Grof is the epitome of cool objectivty rationaity and scientific method.
It is telling that you continually refer to Grof, who is definitely into some left-field concepts (holotropic breathwork, whatever the hell that is), but he was just one researcher out of four for one of the studies I cited, and there are many more I could.
No one here, myself included, is citing him as a standard for anything, but be wary of attacking one of the researchers if you have problems with the subject matter. It belies a weakness of argument.
It was a miracle drug. It would cure alcoholism, homosexuality, bring about racial harmony and world peace.
Oh, you mean like this?
Sheer brilliance, professor.
why am I conservative? because i am observant, i see reality and see what works and what doesnt. give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish, etc. etc. conservatism is the more compassionate approach to human ills, and the more practical one. i was basically without a moral compass, until i had a profound psychic experience that made me sure, absolutely sure that there was design and purpose to everything, that God indeed was real and loving. yes, it was on a mescaline trip... that was 25 years ago. i have never doubted the existence of God since, and try to humbly do my part ever since. I can remember it like it was yesterday. And it made me a far better person. and probably saved me from being a liberal... hard to square with you oh so limited knowledge and experience isnt it? proud husband of 8 years, father, deacon in church,. MBA, college level instructor at private Christian school, little league coach. Would i do it again? you betcha....
Your brain on LSD.
we are everywhere, your colleagues at work, probably in your church, your little league, everywhere. we are the veterans... by the way, three piece suit and short hair, no piercings no tatoos, i have traveled the inner cosmos and you , you , are still stuck on stereotypes my friend...
I agree with OWK. You don't know what you are talking about.
I think that MIGHT have been Salvador Dali's brain NOT on LSD ;)
And you are the one to determine who is "right" to use the drug?
LOL! Of course not! Every man is the sovereign of his own body and mind. What you choose to do with your conciousness is between you and God.
Remember "A Girl Named Sandoz"?
From a recovering drug addict, I must thank you all for the euphoric recall. I'll appreciate even more when I stop being quesy, and get the taste of the puke out of my mouth.
I have'nt felt like this since since the strychnine "fur" in the middle of the peyote buttons was'nt removed prior to being blended into a choclate milkshake and given to me.
Of course, acid did wonders for "helping" drunks. I can testify in my own case that I hardly ever thought about freebasing if I had enough krank on hand.
Two or three hundred trips? 3,000 doses? A whole bunch of shouting over nothing. In 1982, I turned over 5,000 hits of microdot; and acid was small part of my dope business.
I am pleased that so many of you have positive memories of your drug experiences. So do I, except that those memories are connected to the crimes I committed that go hand in hand with providing you consumers your "spiritual" experience. I never dropped for "insight" or "spiritual fulfillment". I dropped to get f@#$ed up.
I understand the point of tallhappy's post. People ruining their lives (like the young man that bought 100 hits of window pane from me in 1981 and took 50 of them at once, and was never the same) is certainly their right.
But, people cheerleading for that right are'nt heroes in my book either. I cannot have the pleasant memories of a few trips that many of you have; to me drugs are the largest horror in near 40 years of memories. I am fortunate (miraculously blessed to be truthful) that I have the life that I have today. I have a real good idea how I have come through with a mind and mental condition (mostly) intact. I do not know why G-d spared me from answering for my crimes that I committed in running my drug business. I'll take it, feel grateful, and also be somewhat contemptuous of those that think dope has anything to offer anyone other than a few hours of illegal laughs (at best); death on the installment plan (at worst).
So, Doctor, care to show the linkage between LSD and being a liberal? If chemicals can cause liberalism, can they prevent it?
Perhaps there's a new class of chemicals out there, the RMRIs (Romantic Marxism Reuptake Inhibitors).
we are everywhere, your colleagues at work, probably in your church, your little league, everywhere. we are the veterans... by the way, three piece suit and short hair, no piercings no tatoos, i have traveled the inner cosmos and you , you , are still stuck on stereotypes my friend...
Hee heee hee
How little you know.
I see after a while the defensiveness comes out.
Why?
and just what experience do you have to say that it is a scam? you have several people on here who disagree, whom i can tell have actual, first hand experience. in short? have you ever tripped? if not, shut your pie hole moron. i am tire of you....
The defensive and hostility is never far from the surface, is it?
Dali wasn't a head.
At least when he made those paintings he wasn't, and I don't think he ever was.
Could be wrong.
Hey Cap: The lab pay you for the plug, or have they got you marked down on their "To Gull" list?
Seriously: the idea that LSD promotes liberalism and communism isn't really exact. The only way that such a drug could probably be a political danger would be is if it promoted what the old republicans called "effemization" - turn men that would otherwise stand up and be counted into passive and pliable subjects.
In that case, it would be a pro-Establishment drug. It would benefit those that are in power...
...especially if the acid heads lost it, like they did in 1969. They certainly did Nixon a favor!
BTW:
Why is today's panacea usually found in yesterday's war effort...to be used against the enemy, for Gawd's sake!?
I agree with OWK. You don't know what you are talking about.
What am I talking about then? What are you talking about?
I'll take it, feel grateful, and also be somewhat contemptuous of those that think dope has anything to offer anyone other than a few hours of illegal laughs (at best);
Everyone's mileage obviously differs. It sounds like you were waaaay more involved in a certain criminal/immature lifestyle where the drugs were a facilitating agent, not the cause. Good for you for getting out of it.
However, my experiences with psychedelics was sublime and life-changing for the positive. I also learned from taking them why I didn't need to take them. Rather a self-contained system, and one I do not regret having experienced in the least.
Perhaps there's a new class of chemicals out there, the RMRIs (Romantic Marxism Reuptake Inhibitors).
Interesting concept.
Nice one.
The use and advocacy of these drugs has been very influential in bringing about proponents for and a citizenry that accept ultra-liberalism, anti-Americanism, moral relativism and so many of the ills of our society and the "culture war."
Yes, indeed. What are you talking about?
Everyone's mileage obviously differs. It sounds like you were waaaay more involved in a certain criminal/immature lifestyle where the drugs were a facilitating agent, not the cause. Good for you for getting out of it.
Yes, the elitist school of thought.
Leary and someone else, Huxley I think, would argue on this. Leary said they were for everybody, but others thought they were for a certain special elite who could handle them properly and get the proper enlightenment that the unwashed masses couldn't.
I also learned from taking them why I didn't need to take them.
All that is, is not, and that which is not is.
The way of the way is no way.
Clear as a bell made out of swallow spittle and mud.
Care to answer the question? Not to harp on the issue but your assertion that the liberal-drug linkage is chemical rather than cultural is pretty out-there. You could attempt to back it up . . .
Or you could continue to assert the linkage despite testimonials from other Freepers that provide contrary evidence . . .
Your choice.
drugs were a facilitating agent, not the cause
Actually the reverse is true. My druglust could not be met except by getting into the business side of things. In that business, things were just done a certain way. Like vendor selection, assigning sales territory and collections for instance.
I also learned from taking them why I didn't need to take them. Rather a self-contained system, and one I do not regret having experienced in the least.
Good for you. I certainly hope that not too many people were killed, beaten, or jailed for your consumptive pleasure.
also be somewhat contemptuous of those that think dope has anything to offer anyone other than a few hours of illegal laughs
That's why I don't advocate these substances for everyone. Criminal loosers like you and RaceBannon have to project their own failings on everyone else.
You need to understand that just because you are an idiot doesn't mean everyone is. That's something you apparently missed along the way.
Yes, the elitist school of thought.
Leary and someone else, Huxley I think, would argue on this. Leary said they were for everybody, but others thought they were for a certain special elite who could handle them properly and get the proper enlightenment that the unwashed masses couldn't.
It should be patently clear that certain individuals with certian pre-existing psychosis or mental problems should not, under any circumstances, use psychedelics. I could give a rip what Leary or Huxley thought or espoused, as I am not still wallowing in their goofy paradigm, as you seem to be. So be it.
All that is, is not, and that which is not is.
The way of the way is no way.
Clear as a bell made out of swallow spittle and mud.
It is inherent to the paradox of life that understanding the Ineffable transcends explanation, as your posts so clearly, inadvertantly, demonstrate.
I certainly hope that not too many people were killed, beaten, or jailed for your consumptive pleasure.
Only women, children and people in wheelchairs. Why?
Care to answer the question? Not to harp on the issue but your assertion that the liberal-drug linkage is chemical rather than cultural is pretty out-there. You could attempt to back it up
OK, I am reading your comment carefully and seeing you are mistaken about something. I in no way attributed it to inherent chemical properties divorced from the cultural.
I don't know where you got that from.
Look at the entire counter culture of the 60's and 70's.
The "New Left"
All came from a hallucinogenic haze.
Perhaps if the context of the advent of wide spread use of such drugs was in an ultra liberal society, the movement would have been toward a fascism.
But the dynamic is the same. Extremism in those who seek to lead, self absorbtion and apathy in those who are in it for the experience and sensual aspects.
In pre-war Germany, drugs, including mescaline, were fairly common.
They went a similar way, but seemingless opposite, way.
And you obviously have no comprehension of the things that go on a few steps above you in the supply chain for you to have your "spiritual experience".
Criminal loosers like you and RaceBannon have to project their own failings on everyone else.
That's former crimnal loser to you, junior.
You need to understand that just because you are an idiot doesn't mean everyone is
Ummm Hmmm. Yeah, the casual loser, er, user has absolutely no culpability in producing the demand that is met by a plethora of criminal enterprises.
When I got into the business, I did'nt write the rules, I just learned them.
So your hands are clean, huh, homey?
You've taken the sh!t, and in the eyes of the state, that makes you a criminal too. Don't know whether you are a loser though. Although your hostile reply gives me a clue. Along with the failing to recognize your own criminal behavior, while screaming something I already know at me. I stopped worrying about anything that did'nt involve a gun in face or paddles on my chest years ago.
You also have no reading comprehension. I said "you don't know what you are talking about"
and now you want me to tell you ?
Why should I waste my time with you, who are just trying to pick a fight. you obviously don't want to actually discuss the topic you posted. This post is over 150 replies and you haven't said a thing. You are foolish.
It is inherent to the paradox of life that understanding the Ineffable transcends explanation, as your posts so clearly, inadvertantly, demonstrate.
Yes yes, the enlightened ones, the overlords, you superior ones.
The Vision of the Annointed, how sweet it is.
Why?
Why ask Why? Have a Bud Dry. At least the supply chain for the beer to get into your hands is'nt fertilized with blood.
Different case with dope.
and now you want me to tell you ?
If you know that I don't know what I am talking about, you must know it.
Tell us, oh sage.
I like to play around with you silly muddleheaded dopers as well. It's fun to watch you guys get neural overload.
GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!!
But, it has made brainwashing to the socialist view much easier and has reinforced the views of the socialist crusaders.
You simply don't know what you are talking about, and I am a counterexample for this. If anything, LSD has deepened my love of freedom.
It sounds like special pleading to say that someone who has never tripped can't possibly know what "IT" is, but it's a fact.
Now I will grant that sometimes it seems to me that the Clinton presidency and the whole Democrat style of evil and misdirection are informed by psychedelic insights twisted to serve darkness. Something like "that depends what 'is' is" might never have been tried in a world without LSD.
But by the same token LSD is a profoundly anti-authoritarian experience, along dimensions I am not poet enough to describe. Pretense, pride, and vanity in oneself and others may be revealed in all their destructive absurdity. And that does not promote socialism, which is all of these things.
You simply don't know what you are talking about, and I am a counterexample for this. If anything, LSD has deepened my love of freedom.
I'm taking you at your word. I'd just say, do you think you are representative of half?
I'd say at best you represent 1%.
I appreciate your comments because they indicate you do know what I'm talking about.
And surely, you really don't think there are many people out there who haven't tripped?
The idea that one must have has such an experience to know or understand something I think is false, and is illsutrative more of the limited world view of those who become enamoured of the trip.
People become more and more self absorbed and relate less and less to other people.
The blood of the drug trade is on the hands of the United States government and those who support it's tyrannical and unconstitutional prohibitions.
But by the same token LSD is a profoundly anti-authoritarian experience
I think this may be key, yes.
Anti-authoritarian is not necessarily a good thing, and anti-authoritarianism for the sake of it is destructive.
OK, I am reading your comment carefully and seeing you are mistaken about something. I in no way attributed it to inherent chemical properties divorced from the cultural. I don't know where you got that from.
That seemed to be the case, because you left out the intermediate steps in your logic. But, thankfully, you've filled them in below:
Look at the entire counter culture of the 60's and 70's. The "New Left" All came from a hallucinogenic haze. Perhaps if the context of the advent of wide spread use of such drugs was in an ultra liberal society, the movement would have been toward fascism.
Yeah hippies did drugs. Correlation is not causation.
In pre-war Germany, drugs, including mescaline, were fairly common.
Oh I see now, you're asserting that certain cultures (which are evil) like drug use and therefore suppressing drug use is a means of suppressing them. Do you believe that liberalism cannot be defeated in the minds of Americans by argument? Or is this indirect means of suppression the only effective response?
What about "Demon Rum?" Would we be more or less likely to turn out like the Nazis if we banned alcohol?
Have you ever been drunk? Did you slip from your convictions after being drunk? Or is liquor a "conservativism enhancer"?
Do you think it is possible that LSD could be the favored recreational drug of a freedom loving people (and alcohol disfavored)? If not, why not?
The blood of the drug trade is on the hands of the United States government and those who support it's tyrannical and unconstitutional prohibitions.
Preach it, brother.
Can I get an Amen?
Oh look, Brother Traffic is speaking in tongues.
Yeah hippies did drugs. Correlation is not causation.
Wow. You probably heard someone say that sometime. Good for you.
I was under the impression that you had something to say as opposed to more of the talking to oneself babbling all the self rightous liberaltarians pleasure themselves with.
OK, you can say "correlation is not causation", but this doesn't exist in a vacuum.
It's not like they are some ancient civilization that has to be studied. They were able to talk for themselves.
One fellow above did hit on it, I think, when he talked about the anti-authoritarian nature of the experience.
But, one thing interesting, there really does seem to be a correlation with the use of it and a drift toward what are considered eastern thought.
I wish you didn't have some defensive close minded agenda and weren't so defensive about things.
I was an athiest (and a socalist liberal for that matter) before my experience with psychedelic drugs. Now I am neither.
I'm still an atheist, and have been for as long as I can remember, but I think I understand what the religious impulse is about now. I'm much more tolerant of what once seemed to be sheer quackery. LSD definitely opened my hard science mind to the metaphorical side of things.
The idea that one must have has such an experience to know or understand something I think is false, and is illsutrative more of the limited world view of those who become enamoured of the trip.
I beleive that you cannot understand what the psychedelic experience is without haveing it. Before I ever tried it I was quite averse to it because of all the horror stories drilled into me throughout school (including the infamous DARE program).
I had talked with people who had had the experience and asked them to describe it for me. When I finally had the experience it was absolutely nothing like I thought it might be. In my opinion, there is no way that one could come close to understanding the psychedelic experience without haveing a psychedelic experience.
Do you believe that liberalism cannot be defeated in the minds of Americans by argument?
If you waste your mind on drugs logical argument doesn't mean much.
That's the problem. And people who take drugs start to think they are actually better off for taking them.
The blood of the drug trade is on the hands of the United States government and those who support it's tyrannical and unconstitutional prohibitions.
Bingo.
Hallelujah!
I was under the impression that you had something to say. . .
I did. Take for the example the (count 'em) seven questions in my post #168 that you have ignored.
My style of argument includes rhetorical questions designed to get you to examine the assumptions behind your viewpoint. That's all I'm asking for.
You will never find anyone so in favor of legalization of drugs as I am. You will probably never find anyone more opposed to their use than I am.
It is the great problem with addiction; one never knows if their personality or other shortcomings will lead to trouble with something until they try it. Then it is too late for many; the process begins, and the result of the process is often tragic. The result for me was miraculous. And rare.
Being a libertarian, you are concerned with "objective reality" are you not? If you want to use drugs, fine, just recognize the fact that you are participating in a system that means death. The market made partially by your demand is outside the law; you do not want to know what goes on to meet your demand, I understand that, but you should still know to decide if your moral code allows for supporting criminal behavior.
Until drugs are legal, you are playing a small part in enriching criminals, and ruining people's lives with jail time, violence, or death. When they are legal have a big party. Until then, do not try to tell me or a 15 year old kid lurking how "wonderful" acid is. Some of us know MANY sides of the story. The future addict you may be encouraging does not need to know ANY side of the story.
If you waste your mind on drugs, logical argument doesn't mean much.
You know, I'll bet the Sons of Liberty didn't come up with all their great ideas while sober. In fact the Tea Party was almost certainly liquor induced!
That said, drug addiction is indicative of poor thought patterns. Fun with friends every now and then is not.
That's the problem. And people who take drugs start to think they are actually better off for taking them.
Well, that's a bit of hyperbole -- but considering that your brain is an equilibrium system, knocking the equilibrium out of place a few times might not be a bad thing. Clears the cobwebs.
I appreciate your comments because they indicate you do know what I'm talking about.
I do understand. To put a piece of a mystery into pale words that don't do any justice, LSD is about the destruction of categories, concepts, and cliches, and blurring the verbal distinctions we draw between "things". Just like the decadent art and "lit crit" of today's intellectual aristocracy, and the moral dumbing down of the people via corruption of language ("doesn't rise to the level" "what is is"). There's a connection in the lubrication of concepts, whether causal or not. It's Year Zero on blotter paper for good or ill.
The idea that one must have has such an experience to know or understand something I think is false, and is illsutrative more of the limited world view of those who become enamoured of the trip.
What can I say? If you ever meet anyone after their first trip who tells you that they at all expected what they were in for, I'd be very surprised.
The idea that one must have has such an experience to know or understand something I think is false, and is illsutrative more of the limited world view of those who become enamoured of the trip.
I beleive that you cannot understand what the psychedelic experience is without haveing it
Carefull, you are sliding. I was talking about supposed insights ("know or understand something") gleaned from a trip.
You have slid over to simply the sensual experience of being under the influence of the drug which is a different thing.
I did. Take for the example the (count 'em) seven questions in my post #168 that you have ignored.
When I made my comment I was referring to your questions.
Careful,Mr E, they're on a witch-hunt and looking for prey.
When I made my comment I was referring to your questions.
Sure, you dismissed them. How about just answering this set of questions:
Do you think it is possible that LSD could be the favored recreational drug of a freedom loving people (and alcohol disfavored)? If not, why not?
I never posted those words. So who is the "brilliant" one here who misattributes quotes?
Careful,Mr E, they're on a witch-hunt and looking for prey.
Even Salem eventually came to its senses. :)
"The future addict you may be encouraging does not need to know ANY side of the story."
"Ignorance is Strength"
Stay tuned for updates from Minitru.;^)
Carefull, you are sliding. I was talking about supposed insights ("know or understand something") gleaned from a trip.
Fascinating. There are many well-known artists and even scientists who have indulged themselves in altered consciousness experiences, and many with a rather noticable frequency.
The funny thing is, there is no knowledge or insight to reality whatsoever. Until you actually overcome your own fear, be it drugs, surfing, ice-climbing, combat or whatever, you will only mouth the platitudes of someone who has never ventured out beyond their own preconceptions. And yes, I expect I know your response to this.
You have slid over to simply the sensual experience of being under the influence of the drug which is a different thing.
This is quite a telling statement.
I ask you in all honesty if you have ever had a personal experience with psychedelics. It is, without question, most UN-sensual.
Rather more of a birth. Not unpleasant, but without doubt not sensual.
You need to get out more.
Maybe a bowling league or perhaps The Shriners.
We should not forget the man who initially discovered LSD, Abbie Hoffman.
I never posted those words. So who is the "brilliant" one here who misattributes quotes?
I was referring to the original quote that your query was directed to, Jack.
Ass.
I suggest becoming familiar with the flow of conversation here.
We should not forget the man who initially discovered LSD, Abbie Hoffman.
You already have forgotten him. Albert Hoffman discovered LSD on April 16, 1945. Not that idiot Abbie Hoffman.
May God be merciful and lift Oscar Janiger up to the Light of His countenance, and may perpetual Light shine upon him.
Ho, ho, ho! Was Steve Jobs one of his "patients"?
May God be merciful and lift Oscar Janiger up to the Light of His countenance, and may perpetual Light shine upon him.
This may sound strange, but I am proud of you for making the above statement.
May god grant the serenity that passes all human understanding to that man, and afford us all insight into our own folly.
The funny thing is, there is no knowledge or insight to reality whatsoever.
Banish wisdom, discard knowledge,
And the people shall profit a hundredfold;
Banish "humanity," discard "justice,"
And the people shall recover love of their kin;
Banish cunning, discard "utility,"
And the thieves and brigands shall disappear.
As these three touch the externals and are inadequate,
The people have need of what they can depend upon:
Reveal thy simple self,
Embrace thy original nature,
Check thy selfishness,
Curtail thy desires.
chapter 19, Tao Te Ching of Lao Tse
Ah, little blue pills and little red pills back in college ... personally, the few times I took an acid hit I thought it was an interesting experience, even fun. Didn't do me any harm, didn't push me over the edge or send me towards a path of escalating personal destruction. ... uh, wow, dude, my hands are melting ....
I do not encourage any child to take any psychedelic drug or any other drug for that matter that his parents have not approved for him. I do not encourage any adult for that matter, I'm just suggesting that LSD is not an unmitigated evil as some would suggest. I wouldn't argue this for other drugs such as cocaine or heroin etc. for which I see little or no redeeming value (that's how I personally feel, but I wouldn't prohibit another from living as they wish so long as they harm no one else).
With drug legalization we would be better able to try and get drugs out of the hands of children. We certainly would prevent alot of the violence and addiction and disease and misery that is caused by the WoD.
I would never say that cocaine is a wonderfull drug or heroin or crystal meth or ritalin even. But psychedelic drugs are as different from these other substances as they can get. They are just a chemical, I've personally had a good experience with psychedelic drugs, others have had hellish experiences with them. If a healthy sane adult wishes to have that experience it is his life and no one elses.
I can't be responsible for a kid lurking on the internet, otherwise there would be few things we could discuss. I leave parenting to the parents. If and when I have a children of my own then that will be my responsibility and I'll take it seriously.
Now I understand that I have taken a part in a violent trade, but I do not take responsibility for this heinious evil. I try to do what I think is the moral thing to do, I can't be responsible for others several times removed from my interaction. The government has placed these short sighted restrictions on this country. I don't deny the ramifications of my actions but these are caused by the government's prohibition. God created me a free man, and that is how I will live, and I will die for that ideal if need be. I refuse to be a slave.
Like I said the blood of the trade is on the hands of the drug warriors (and I'm glad to see you are not one of them). I respect your position that drugs use is bad, I'm very glad that you are in support of legalization.
I advocate legalization because I don't want to hear anymore of the horrendous stories. A guy from another discussion group I'm on (a video game site) had his 15 year old sister pass away this week after takeing crystal meth. Apparently it was tainted with bleach. It didn't have to happen.
I certainly concede the fact that most people are negatively affected by drugs in general. Again my point in this thread is simply that there is a lot of misinformation concerning LSD and another side to the story.
He was one of Bill Clinton's advisers, right?
My mistake, I see what you are saying. Yes, I agree with you in that sense. For me, however, I do beleive it helped me to understand some things that I may have not come to understand otherwise.
You already have forgotten him. Albert Hoffman discovered LSD on April 16, 1945. Not that idiot Abbie Hoffman.
I beleive he first synthesized in 1939, but his first "trip" may have been in 1945 when he first accidently absorbed some into his skin.
"Last Friday, April 16,1943, I was forced to interrupt my work in the laboratory in the middle of the afternoon and proceed home, being affected by a remarkable restlessness, combined with a slight dizziness. At home I lay down and sank into a not unpleasant intoxicated-like condition, characterized by an extremely stimulated imagination. In a dreamlike state, with eyes closed (I found the daylight to be unpleasantly glaring), I perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colors. After some two hours this condition faded..."
I have had the pleasure of hearing Dr. Hoffman speak personally, in German, in Switzerland.
God bless his simple, fundamental soul, and may we all care for each other as he did for the integrity of his studies.
He possessed an extraordinary imagination, and a commensurate calm and serenity.
Trauemen, Herr Hoffman, dass ist das Einzige, was in diesem Fall zaehlt. Moegen Engeln dich ueberwachen und ewige duerfen Sie Frieden und die Einzigkeit Gottes und uns zusammen geniessen.
Er stirbte als er lebte: unschuldig
With drug legalization we would be better able to try and get drugs out of the hands of children.
The entirety of this thread, and so many others here, has been boiled down to this one, simple summary.
God help those who don't just fail to understand, but who consciously try not to.
I never did trust gas ovens....
One important point. The experience was not introduced to humanity by Albert Hoffman, he just synthesized a very potent synthetic psychedelic (and since then far more potent ones have been created).
Of course psychedelic substances have been available for as long as man has walked the earth. Morning Glory, the "magic" mushroom, peyote, rosewood, and many many many many many other sources.
Of course psychedelic substances have been available for as long as man has walked the earth. Morning Glory, the "magic" mushroom, peyote, rosewood, and many many many many many other sources.
Since the fruit tree in the middle of the garden, perhaps... The one Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from....
(You know I respect your posts, but....)
No duh.
Except now they even pick the growths, fungi, ect. from underneath it.
The fact that he no longer inhabits the planet lends credence to the theory of a benevolent God.
I think that MIGHT have been Salvador Dali's brain NOT on LSD ;)
It had to be peyote or mushrooms. Thats a psychedelic painting if I ever saw one.
Ah! Intersting, I've often wondered about that. The Tree of Knowledge? Also interesting to note that even God was unsuccesfull with prohibition. ;)
LOL, I didn't mean that for you, I was makeing the point in general :)
The Fall is a fine tragic interpretation of the psychedelic experience, but I think LSD was prophesied most clearly in Rev 10:8-11:
Re:10:8: And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.
Re:10:9: And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
Re:10:10: And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
Re:10:11: And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.
Ah! Intersting, I've often wondered about that. The Tree of Knowledge? Also interesting to note that even God was unsuccesfull with prohibition. ;)It was wrong of you to even jest about such things, NC.
Thanks for your courteous reply. Just for the record though, I used Google and found: "Leader Post, Saskatchewan Dec 13th 1980. Five Canadians suing CIA over experiments in 1950's- $5million suite in Montreal" a Dr Ewen Cameron was involved then deceased. The Canadian politician was an MP for Winnipeg North, it was his wife who claimed damages. I am unable to research whether it was proven that brain damage had resulted.
God help those who don't just fail to understand, but who consciously try not to.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mathew 7:20
Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for "meat".
Romans 14:21 “It is good neither to eat" meat" nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.”
It saddens me to no end that you say you are fighting for drugs using God's name, to protect the kids.
Ah! Intersting, I've often wondered about that. The Tree of Knowledge? Also interesting to note that even God was unsuccesfull with prohibition.
So you think the Devil has won right?
Hey Peter Libra, Interesting stuff you dug up. People sueing due to damages caused by the drugs. Of course you don't see most of the posters on this thread pointing out this out, just how great this man was, blah, blah, blah. Thanks for posting.
Ah, little blue pills and little red pills back in college ... personally, the few times I took an acid hit I thought it was an interesting experience, even fun. Didn't do me any harm, didn't push me over the edge or send me towards a path of escalating personal destruction. ... uh, wow, dude, my hands are melting ....
Funny there is a Scottish group that did a song called "Republican Party Reptile". Big Country was the group, they were very liberal, big Greenpeace pushers, ect.. The lead singer, Stuart Adamson, has got a huge drug problem. It broke the group up last year, now he can't even finish one gig. Perhaps it didn't push you over the edge, but it sure hit home with a person that did the song by the handle you go by. BTW, it is a horrible song, I have the limited edition release vinyl of it.
BTW, if you want a copy of the song, Freepmail me, I can open some obscure Myplay account with an deadend account (for privacy) and post it for ya.
You're an idiot. Why?
My guess, is some sort of genetic deficiency.
Where does your hostility come from?
From idiots.
LOL... truly lol.... Have a good day.
Sounds like a case of self-loathing to me. :(
"Also interesting to note that even God was unsuccesfull with prohibition. ;)"
Nice try, but you'll notice that GOD was not the one that came out with the short end of that stick.
Nice try, but you'll notice that GOD was not the one that came out with the short end of that stick.
But look at all the personal freedom we gained. < sarcasm >
Apparently it was tainted with bleach.
Meth is usually "rinsed" with bleach after it is decanted. That is why it looks white, and not yellow. The a$$hole chemist must have been in a hurry, and did'nt dry it long enough. Either that, or she did'nt let it dry enough long enough before going for it. Bad stuff meth. I'm surprised I don't have cancer yet, from taking as much of it as I did. I now know that nothing good can come of ephedrine, the additive that turns kerosene in JP4, and film hardener together. I did'nt know that when I was 18.
It didn't have to happen.
None of it has to; that is the sad part of it all. I argue with some people at my church and point out that it was easier for me to get pot when I was 16 than it was to get beer. That is why I am in favor of legalization; legalize ALL OF IT. That will keep it out of minor's hands better than forcing the whole trade into the black market. Not to mention what the WoD's is doing to our Constitution.
I certainly concede the fact that most people are negatively affected by drugs in general. Again my point in this thread is simply that there is a lot of misinformation concerning LSD and another side to the story.
And I agree with you about 'L; I know of many that have taken it and had nothing terrible happen to them.
I usually do not even mention my background in detail on this forum; to be honest, I am quite of ashamed of much of what I have done. I did something differrent today because I wanted to bring in the completely unpredictable nature of drugs on the person trying them. I never intended to be an addict or to do the crimes that were part and parcel of the dope business. I just tried some pot. And I liked it. A lot. I posted to provide a balance for the cheerleading; not hyperbole about losing your mind or "chromosome damage", but what is possible.
I also try to point out, as gently as possibe, that no one has their hands clean in the current situation; not the cops, the importers, the dealers, or the users. It is all just one big Daisy Chain of death, with Cayman Island bankers on the end that don't have their mouths full.
BTW, I am glad that you did not find the same thing I did when your curiosity had you flip over that particular rock. Being an actual addict is something I would not wish on anyone.
LOL, yeah
"That is why I am in favor of legalization; legalize ALL OF IT. That will keep it out of minor's hands better..."
What's your rationale for that, just out of curiosity?
Most recently, he was involved with a group studying dolphins in their natural environment. From original article at beginning.
So why did this man not go on to test LSD on the dolphins, He could then of been involved with a group studying dolphins in their unnatural environment. His earlier studies on human should be classified as unnatural also.
you will only mouth the platitudes
What's funny is all that comes out of your mouth here are empty platitudes.
Hearing you is like being in a time warp and it is the 60's all over again.
Hippy dippy trippy mumbo jumbo.
The absolute nonsensical rubbish that comes out of people enamoured with hallucinogenic drugs is such blather.
And it never seems to change.
We should not forget the man who initially discovered LSD, Abbie Hoffman.
You already have forgotten him. Albert Hoffman discovered LSD on April 16, 1945. Not that idiot Abbie Hoffman.
You are right. What is funny is that Abbie Hoffman is a total LSD product. The poster child for LSD use.
You hippy guys don't know how Abbie-ish you are, either.
You are the equivalent of him in the year 2001.
You hippy guys don't know how Abbie-ish you are, either.
You are the equivalent of him in the year 2001.
And once again you show yourself to be a person who makes bold denunciations on subjects of which you are completely ignorant.
What's your rationale for that, just out of curiosity?
it was easier for me to get pot when I was 16 than it was to get beer
From my post #224. I guess the phrase right before the the part you quoted must have been fuzzed on your screen or something...
To expand. When I was "doin' ma thang" many years ago, I was daily dancing to a tune that had multiple year felony sentences for even possessing the quantities of, er, product that I carried. It was'nt any big deal to the authorities WHO I sold to, just that I had quantity available TO SELL.
Now, if I had a licensed shop, or a "Rite Aid" with a Narcotic Sales Liscense, it would cost me my livelihood to sell to underage persons. That is why you don't see persons under 21 gambling in Vegas casinos, dancing in "wet" Hollywood nightclubs, or minors allowed into "soft drink" strip clubs. There is just too much money to be made from adults, legally, for a business man to take the risk.
This, of course, does not even take into account the human cost in poisonings from impurities, shootings over transactions gone bad, and other easily imagined effects from a multi billion $ business that is all in the blackest market you could think of.
Let me just clue you in on my mindset ala 1981; I grossed about $120k in sales that year. The last thing I would have wanted that year was legalization. I would have been instantly out of business, and just another consumer. I will not mention the number of violent felonies I committed that year (though some were in self-defense). Things have not changed much on the business end of this deal, and, you know something; maybe it is time that they did change. When has a sales rep for Seagrams ever shot a Vodka distributor for selling to the same bars he was? When has a bar owner ever pulled out a gun to steal a truck load of Budweiser? (Hint: Sh!t like that happened over alcohol from 1919 - 1933.) Wake up; stop supporting criminal enterprises and individuals (uniformed or otherwise) with an ineffective prohibition.
You COULD possibly stop drug use in this nation, but it would require Orwellian controls to do it in our "Land of the Free".
Romans 14:21 “It is good neither to eat" meat" nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.”
There's a whale of a chasm between Christian charity and jackbooted thuggism. Janiger probably WAS a crock. So??
as have many of the old urban legends about innocent kids driven insane by acid.
These are not legends, they really happened.
Sure, some of the era's LSD enthusiasts overstated their case (I doubt many people would argue that it's instant chemical enlightenment ),
LSD isn't chemical enlightenment, it's chemical confusion.
There is simply no justification for the use of LSD, a dangerous drug.
But look at the hostility here for the view point you understand and share.
And these are supposed to be conservatives at free republic.
The only way I can comprehend this hostility to anti-drug rhetoric is that perhaps these conservatives look back fondly at their hedonistic years.
Then you should have attributed it as such.
Druggie.
"it was easier for me to get pot when I was 16 than it was to get beer"
Well, my personal experiences are different, I never had any trouble getting either. Neither does my brother, he's been drinking alcohol regularly since he was 14. I guess it depends on who you know. It seems to me that more kids are drinking underage than are doing hard drugs. How do you think making them legal like beer will solve the problem?
"The only way I can comprehend this hostility to anti-drug rhetoric is that perhaps these conservatives look back fondly at their hedonistic years."
Someone forgot to tell them that the 1960's ended thirty years ago.
Someone forgot to tell them that the 1960's ended thirty years ago.
I asked my parents about the 60's (since I was born there abouts) and how the portray of them in TV and the movies corrosponded to their lives? Both said it was just something the media played up, and was NOT the way they saw things. They both never saw drugs whatsoever and both were in college. They said most of all the stupid druggie culture, dress, drag, ect... had to be in the cities because it was not that way at all in rural and small town life. Just like today, where the cities are democratic strongholds, and rural America is Republican (look at the map for the voting of Bush vs. Gore).
Now as far as my own experiences, I agree with you, Pot was not easier to obtain than beer. I never saw pot until my junior year in college, when I passed a frat house one night and saw a group smoking weed through the window. Beer was everywhere, any party (and there was plenty) had kegs you could fill up your cup for free. I was just a poor kid (so what, proud to have the opertunity to attend college) so I was not a Frat member. Perhaps the kids that had more "waste" money were the ones that did more drugs. I don't know, but I do know it was not something just passed around and free and easy to obtain.
I appologize. I didn't mean to be offensive.
I made that comment very lightly. If I could retract it, I would.
Don't even step to shulgin, what have you done comparted to him? Zilch.
PM, your petite comments are have little content. They're snipey little blips, not arguements. Many here can tell the difference.
cernnus makes good points, you do too. can you maintain?
It is counterfactual for you to take myths literally, and wrong to use your parochial superstition as the basis for coersion.
It seems to me that more kids are drinking underage than are doing hard drugs. How do you think making them legal like beer will solve the problem?
Which problem are you speaking of? Minors acquiring and using intoxicants? The violence and criminal activities involved in the Drug Trade? The corruption (sometimes at a national level; i.e. Columbia) of law enforcement officers and/or agencies? The millions of able bodied men in prison that should be working and being fathers, husbands, etc.? The establishment of a huge legal/government structure which itself produces nothing except for the aforementioned millions of men in prison?
The problems in these questions would definately be solved by legalization. Except for the first. And the solution for that is the one which was lacking in my life; and perhaps in your family's life also. That solution involves parents actually being parents. This is the solution I will try on my kids. BTW, it will help me keeping my kids sober by not having anything (booze, etc.) in my home. Something your parents might want to try, PM.
Thanks for the nomination! };^D)
I made that comment very lightly. If I could retract it, I would.
Fair enough. I will not pursue that avenue futher. Keep Freeping.
I never had any trouble getting either.
I appolige for making the reference that you said that drugs (in your opinion) were harder to get that booze. You said both were easily obtained. I did not mean to misquote you, I take it back. I need to better proof read it seems.
Druggie.
As I mentioned already, I eschew intoxicants of every sort.
The absolute nonsensical rubbish that comes out of people enamoured with hallucinogenic drugs is such blather.
Who here is 'enamored' with these drugs?
They have a limited but important effect that some can benefit from, and some can't. They are, like so much else, a tool, and, apparantly, one that you are in fear of.
Oh well.
And once again you show yourself to be a person who makes bold denunciations on subjects of which you are completely ignorant.
What would one need to know to not be ignorant on this subject or to know a lot?
I assure you whatever you answer I will go beyond you.
If such a silly argument by authority approach is what you want, I would best you.
I think it is better to talk without pulling rank.
Don't even step to shulgin, what have you done comparted to him? Zilch.
How would you know?
Still, there are all sorts of medicinal chemists who have done a lot more than Shulgin.
Shulgin has done well in being a quasi religious counter cultural figure with a little cult type following.
Hence comments like, "Don't even step to shulgin".
Any undergraduate chemistry major could do the syntheses he does.
Germans determined mescaline and made variations of it in the 20's and 30's. Hofmann made the major discovery that the active ingredient of mushrooms was a tryptamine, as is LSD.
The Fluid Mosaic model of membrane structure combined with recptor theory and radioligand binding assays were the breaktrhoughs that lead to major advances in the field. The cloning the genes with the amazing discovery that rhodopsin and adrenergic receptors were actually part of the same family.
Shulgin didn't really do anything major, inique or signifcant.
I think he could have used all the compounds to do some good research, but he never has. I don't think that is his interest. He's a "hobbyist" and enthusiast and evangelist, not really a scientist.
The key is in the analysis. I don't see where he has done much to advance the field. That's OK, because like I said I don't think he is interested in that.
Can you do me a nice favor, can you give me a reference to any articles he's published in the literature?
What would one need to know to not be ignorant on this subject or to know a lot?
Can you hold onto a context for one round of posts?
You said I am an Abbie Hoffman. You know nothing about me, my politics, or what I've done to further them. You are even more ignorant in this regard than you are about the main subject.
"As I mentioned already, I eschew intoxicants of every sort."
While commendable, do you not expect others to hold themselves to as high a standard as you apparently hold yourself?
While commendable, do you not expect others to hold themselves to as high a standard as you apparently hold yourself?
It sounds paradoxial, but I had to do the things I did in order to understand why I actually didn't need to do them.
Experience is the best teacher.
If anything, LSD has deepened my love of freedom.
Abbie Hoffman said the exact sem thing. You are his "reincarnation" as it were. Same dynamic. Think about it.
Now get back to the subject.
Shulgin didn't really do anything major, inique or signifcant.
I think he could have used all the compounds to do some good research, but he never has. I don't think that is his interest. He's a "hobbyist" and enthusiast and evangelist, not really a scientist.
His synthesis include 2CB, STP (DOM) as well as hundreds of other phenethylamines and tryptamines, and he was funded and licensed for nearly 20 years up until recently by the DEA in the States.
If qualifies him as a 'hobbyist', I'd like to know what you think the qualications for a scientist are.
Now get back to the subject.
"The American people think it's time to move on and leave behind the politics of personal destruction", eh?
Abbie Hoffman and I mean very different things by the word "freedom". He was a socialist. I am a free market capitalist.
How very Clintonist of you, taking statements out of context and using them to smear by association, then when the foolishness of the smear is pointed out, waving it all off as dwelling on some side issue.
A prominent member of the New Democratic Party in power- I think it was Saskatchewan or Manitoba, had evidence that his mother was experimented on. I believe that considerable damages were paid, if not claimed on this Canadian scandal-
In late '60s, early '70s, researchers Osmond and Hoffer ran studies in Saskatchewan, I believe, to determine effect of LSD on alcoholics. Studies were funded by the province and were strictly above-board.
There was also a hospital for alcoholics in New Westminster, British Columbia, near Vancouver, where LSD was used to treat alcoholics. Hollywood Hospital. They also had a wing where anyone could come to take carefully controlled doses of LSD. Americans from NASA, Hollywood, the arts, sciences, etc. went up, were handed extensive psychological tests before drugs were administered, and then were given mega-doses of LSD mixed with pure mescaline to enhance visual qualities. They had their "trip" blindfolded in a room with music playing, attended by a "psychedelic therapist," and psychiatrists were on call in the building. The blindfold could be removed, but was supposedly there to insure that "trip" was internal, not diverted to looking out the window or at the pattern on the rug. After LSD was banned in the US in '66, Hollywood Hospital got to be a very popular place. I don't know whether it is still there.
I have just as much proof that you are a "druggie" as you have that I am an "ass."
Moral: Don't personally attack other posters like you did in your Post 189 then cry like a little baby when you receive the same in return.
These are not legends, they really happened.
If you are referring to old urban legends such as "the guy who thought he was an orange (or a glass of orange juice) and tried to peel himself," "the college kids on LSD who went blind staring at the sun," "the babysitter who cooked an infant while high on LSD" or "the grade school kids who got hooked on LSD from temporary tattoos laced with acid," then they are indeed nothing more than stories with no basis in fact. Check out The Urban Legends Reference Page for more information on these stories.
As for people going insane or even killing themselves on LSD, I challenge you to find an example of this rare phenomenon where the individual did not already have some deep-seated psychological problems. For instance, here's an excerpt from an article about a suicide during an LSD experience in the Jan 7, 1967 issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry by Martin H. Keeler, MD and Clifford B. Reifler, MD:
"Personal as well as drug factors are involved when an individual takes his life while in a state of drug intoxication: not many people kill themselves while under the influence of LSD. Mr. A.’s history gives evidences of the development of withdrawal, a subtle type of social isolation, preoccupation with usually unconscious processes, and paranoid tendencies, all of which are consistent with serious psychopathology."
It's quite clear from many of these case studies that people with mental problems should not take drugs. I am aware of no evidence, however, that suggests serious psychological or physical dangers of LSD for individuals with no prior problems. The danger has been greatly overstated based on a few non-typical examples and plenty of scare stories.
If you are referring to old urban legends such as "the guy who thought he was an orange (or a glass of orange juice) and tried to peel himself," "the college kids on LSD who went blind staring at the sun," "the babysitter who cooked an infant while high on LSD" or "the grade school kids who got hooked on LSD from temporary tattoos laced with acid," then they are indeed nothing more than stories with no basis in fact.
No, I am referring to someone I knew personally. He bacame withdrawn and psychotic and according to his girlfriend, was never the same again. This is no legend but fact.
It's quite clear from many of these case studies that people with mental problems should not take drugs.
Saying that no one who doesn't have mental problems is likely to be harmed by LSD is similar to the old Airborne saying that "no one has ever been killed jumping out of an airplane" (it's the impact with the ground that kills). The problem is no one wants to admit they have mental problems and, when someone "flips" on acid, it will be said that "he should not have taken acid because he had mental problems". As we have seen over and over again, the general public cannot be trusted with the responsibility so screen themselves for mental problems when it comes to deciding who drops acid.
Finally, I know someone quite well who, as an 18 year old dropped acid one time and lost the ability to vividly visualize objects. Something changed in his mental functioning after just one "trip". He has gone on, however, to live a normal life, at least as normal as possible in suburban America.
While I'd agree that it's unlikely that everyone will be honest with themselves regarding mental illness, I think you overestimate the number of people out there with serious problems (clinical depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia) who take psychedelics and then have a bad reaction. I'm sorry to hear about your friend, but can you say he had no warning signs of psychosis beforehand?
My only point is that it's rather illogical to cater an entire nation's policy toward certain substances to a tiny minority of individuals who have a much higher than average chance of being negatively affected by them. It would be analogous to banning aspirin because some people are allergic to it and may not know or decide to ignore this fact.
It is irresponsible to be PUSHING these mind twisting drugs as if they were next to nothing. If they push people over the edge who were otherwise in little or no danger, there is reason for close scrutiny.
I am no fan of Federal bans on drugs (I think that goes beyond the Constitution in most cases), and believe in liberalized state codes allowing duly licensed doctors to administer many drugs that are currently totally federally banned. But by the same token, such doctors must be prepared to bear the blame, the shame, and the financial responsibility if they unleash a mental bomb on somebody.
For the very first time I am almost in 100% agreement with you. I will never recover. LOL
It would be analogous to banning aspirin because some people are allergic to it and may not know or decide to ignore this fact.
Ban, no. Scrutinize yes. The consequences of aspirin allergy may be acute (as are the consequences of food allergy) but can be successfully treated in a day or so with few or no lasting consequences. The same can't be said for something that may push people out of control mentally, a chasm which once leapt into can rarely have its effects completely erased even with years of diligent work.
I'd tend to agree with you, and I am by no means encouraging the use of LSD or other psychedelics (I'm no follower of Timothy Leary and his fellow acid gurus). My point, as I stated above, is that a danger that is relevant only to a very minor percentage of the population (people with serious pre-existing mental disorders) has been used to draw unfounded generalities and unfairly demonize drugs with potential positive uses in both the psychological and medical fields (hence the many urban legends about people being driven suddenly and irrevocably insane by LSD).
a danger that is relevant only to a very minor percentage of the population (people with serious pre-existing mental disorders)
Are you simply ASS-U-ME'ing that when someone went permanently kinky from an acid trip that they had to have had a "pre-existing mental disorder"? That something would have eventually gone wrong with them anyhow in "normal" life? Sounds like an extremely tenuous hypothesis at best.
There may be different levels of tolerance capability to the mental stress brought on by an acid trip, but that doesn't call for condemnation of these people as somehow at fault for the results of that trip, any more than someone with weaker than normal bones should be condemned for getting broken arms from attempting to lift 2000 pounds -- as normally, people never try to do that.
Once again, you appear to be making your own assumptions about my beliefs. I never "condemned" anyone or said they "did it to themselves." I am arguing, however, that most of the evidence from cases where a person suffers permanent psychological harm from LSD use, the crux of the argument for keeping these drugs illegal, involve individuals with pre-existing mental health issues of one sort or another (as far as I know from my reading on the subject). Therefore, it's unreasonable to make the leap in logic that this drug causes automatic insanity in otherwise healthy individuals.
That having been said, I'll somewhat validate your last post by saying that someone who is being treated for mental illness (say clinical depression or bipolar disorder) and decides to risk using LSD is making an extremely unwise choice, and ought to know better. I can be sympathetic toward someone who hurts him or herself through such a choice, but that doesn't make it any less foolish or self-destructive.
If you'd like to point me toward evidence of psychedelics causing severe psychotic reactions in otherwise healthy individuals with no history of mental illness or other problems (such as chronic abuse of other drugs), please do so. I would be very interested.
"I appolige for making the reference that you said that drugs (in your opinion) were harder to get that booze. You said both were easily obtained. I did not mean to misquote you, I take it back. I need to better proof read it seems."
Well, I don't think my experience would be typical, anyway, since my mother peddled pot for years. As for hard drugs I would not know how hard they are to get since I never tried to get them. That was something I would have considered doing about as much as I would have considered prostituting myself. It was never an option.
My brother and his friends, however, seem to be drinking more than doing drugs.
Thanks for being civil with me, for me misquoting you. It is appreciated. Keep Freeping, you are well versed and a pleasure to read.
Thanks, same to you. :)
"Which problem are you speaking of?"
I thought it was fairly obvious I was referring to minors using illegal drugs.
"The problems in these questions would definately be solved by legalization."
Well, I've asked twice already and I guess I'll have to ask again: HOW? It very obviously is not working with alcohol, so how would making drugs more widely available prevent children from getting them? You might want to back up what you say with relevant substantiation.
"Except for the first. And the solution for that is the one which was lacking in my life; and perhaps in your family's life also. That solution involves parents actually being parents. This is the solution I will try on my kids. BTW, it will help me keeping my kids sober by not having anything (booze, etc.) in my home. Something your parents might want to try, PM."
Well, first of all I don't give a crap what my parents do--I have my own life.
Secondly, while your "active parenting" thing sounds cute, it doesn't work when the parents are doing drugs, too. Kids learn by example and mentoring. That explains why my brother doesn't seem to have a problem experimenting with drugs and actively drinks on a regular basis (and while was at home would smoke pot with my mom--she thought it was A-OK and as far as I'm concerned put an authority stamp of approval on the behavior). If drugs are made legal, who are you to preach to parents about being "good parents" when they'd simply be exercising their freedoms to get high?
If drugs are made legal, who are you to preach to parents about being "good parents" when they'd simply be exercising their freedoms to get high?
The same person I am when I tell people to not worry so much about the $30,000 in 2nd income and have some one stay home to Home School their kids. Bad parenting is bad parenting, period, no matter what the legal system says; if you don't know that by now, please refrain from practicing on any of your own.
Well, I've asked twice already and I guess I'll have to ask again: HOW? It very obviously is not working with alcohol, so how would making drugs more widely available prevent children from getting them?
No, actually I pointed out in a post previously that MY own personal experience suggested that getting booze at age 16 was harder than buying pot. If you wish to challenge my antecdotal eveidence with some of your own, and then scream "Substantiate", you may wish to take a logic class.
Will I deny that kids can get alcohol? Not at all. I suspect that most them get it the same way I did though, by raiding the alcoholic Dad's liquor cabinet. This will not be the case in my house (as I previously stated).
I will return to later to deal with your reply. Frankly, it was'nt worth the wait, since this seems to be quickly degenerate into a debate on parenting. I got great examples of how NOT to do it; and intend to work things a LOT differently in my house. That's alright, being an ACA myself, I understand the need to punish those that still are get loaded. Someday, you may feel differently.
His is a life that was influential, in this case negatively, on our country and society as a whole to a much greater degree than would be recognized.
Why is taking LSD a bad thing? I don't see how he had a negative impact on anything. People all make choices. Drugs are inanimate objects. I have taken LSD over 30 times, and never once has anything negative come of it. I'm even a well off software engineer. Mind explaining to me the evils of LSD?
I can tell you from personal experience that in certain people it is an extraordinary vehicle for self-relfection and change for the better.
I agree completely, but have since concluded that LSD was not meant for human minds. I now only take psilocybe cubensis, amazonian strain. An amazing thing to notice is the striking similarity between serotonin and drugs like LSD and psilocin and psilocybin.
I suggest everybody should trip once in thier life. You will never look at things the same again, expansive is the word !
I am not sure I agree.. Timothy Leary might have been a bit nutty but he said this..
"Acid is not for every brain - only the healthy, happy, wholesome, handsome, hopeful, humorous, high velocity should seek these experiences. This elitism is totally self-determined. Unless you are self-confident, self-directed, self-selected, please abstain."
Timothy Leary
I now only take psilocybe cubensis, amazonian strain.
I tried mushrooms two or three times, and puked my guts out each time. Made the experience rather unenjoyable.
I now only take psilocybe cubensis, amazonian strain.
I tried mushrooms two or three times, and puked my guts out each time. Made the experience rather unenjoyable.
Another thing about LSD, its a very spirtual experience and if anything made me believe in god that much more.
If you think that, you should try psilocybin mushrooms. That's all I will say. Words cannot even begin to describe the wonderous beauty..
The drug was outlawed in the United States in 1966.
Who knew???
but none benefitted from these drugs.
How can you say something so preposterous? Do you know everyone? Do you know everyone's internal experiences? No? Then shut up.
two, how common do you think this is. I would think if what you are saying is true, you are a miniscule minority.
I am in that minority, and I have always been very Conservative.
Ethnobotany! What a hobby!
Dhrummbas,mighty landslide mushroom!
It isn't called that for nothing!
To this day I still wonder if the visuals that I saw just looking at a flower or an object are not always there and that it was the drug that allowed me to see them.
I have often wondered this as well, however seeing that the answer does not have any real meaning for sober reality, the point is not important, but very interesting nonetheless.
Indeed, it's my current hobby, and it's surprisingly easy!
For me and I beleive many others, the psychedelic experience brings a deeper appreciation for the beauty of God's creation.
I couldn't have said it better myself!!! I only wish I could explain that to people like my girlfriend who've never done it, without sounding like a big block of CHEESE! You know, people think it sounds corny when you describe the experience, but you're dead on. My most wonderful experiences have been alone in nature on 5 grams of psilocybin mushrooms. Words are inadequate..
I realize that some of the more intense visuals were illusion but some of the mild ones I still have doubts about. I think it''s very possible that the mind blocks out a lot of what is in front of us.