Albert Hofmann, Inventor of LSD, Embarks on Final Trip
He was the first person to experience an acid trip--for both good and bad
By David Biello

Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann, inventor of LSD, died yesterday at the age of 102, 
just 10 days after the 55th anniversary of his notorious bicycle trip while 
tripping on "acid". Hofmann, who suffered a heart attack at home in Basel, 
Switzerland, was the first person to synthesize lysergic acid diethylamide, 
better known as LSD, and the first human known to experience its mind-bending 
effects.

The drug was the 25th he created from the basic chemical ingredients of ergot, a 
fungus that forms on rye, in his search for treatments for circulation and 
respiratory problems. He reports in his 1979 autobiography LSD, My Problem 
Child, that he became restless and dizzy when he accidentally ingested the 
compound while making it—and "perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic 
pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colors" for 
about two hours.

The very next day (April 19, 1943), he swallowed 0.25 milligram of the acid to 
confirm that it had caused his odd symptoms. Overcome by dizziness and anxiety, 
he asked an assistant to bicycle him home; once there, he writes that he was 
overcome by feelings that he might die (prompting a later call to his 
physician), along with delusions that included perceiving a kindly neighbor 
transformed into a malevolent witch.

Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, his employer at the time, tried to promote LSD as a drug 
to treat psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia under the trade name 
Delysid by sending samples to psychiatrists—and the compound was briefly used as 
the treatment du jour in conjunction with psychoanalysis.

But acid swiftly found its way into wider use among artists, writers (such as 
Brave New World's Aldous Huxley), actors (including established movie stars like 
Cary Grant), and rebellious teens in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, it became so 
popular as a way to "tune in, turn on and drop out" that in 1966 New York State 
and California made it a crime to possess it; the U.S. government followed suit 
in 1970.

Hofmann also manufactured a wide range of medical drugs from ergot, including 
methergine (which is still used to halt bleeding after birth) and hydergine 
(which improves circulation). In the psychedelic realm, he was also the first to 
synthesize psilocybin, the active ingredient in so-called magic mushrooms 
(Psilocybe mexicana).

On May 1, 1:50 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote:

> In fact, it [LSD] became so
> popular as a way to "tune in, turn on and drop out" that in 1966 New York State
> and California made it a crime to possess it; the U.S. government followed suit
> in 1970.

Correct: the ban had nothing to do with protecting users (nor
protecting the public from users), but was simply coercive conformism.

M_P  wrote:

>Correct: the ban had nothing to do with protecting users (nor
>protecting the public from users), but was simply coercive conformism.


Yeah, man, they were so terrified of the imminent and overwhelming
massive overthrow of the government (because there were so many more
millions of young hippies than conservative rednecks and rich people)
that they merely forced people to buy LSD illegally even though they
could easily do so.

Oh, wait, you're just some moronic nerd who's done too many
psychedelics to even think like a normal person.  Congrats, paranoid
dweeb.

-- 
Joel Crump

On May 1, 2:31 pm, Joel  wrote:
> M_P  wrote:

> >Correct: the ban had nothing to do with protecting users (nor
> >protecting the public from users), but was simply coercive conformism.
>
> Yeah, man, they were so terrified of the imminent and overwhelming
> massive overthrow of the government (because there were so many more
> millions of young hippies than conservative rednecks and rich people)

Straw man; I didn't say anything about government being "terrified,"
nor does government need to be terrified in order to pass laws that
exceed its proper authority.

> that they merely forced people to buy LSD illegally even though they
> could easily do so.

Who could easily do what? If you mean that people could easily buy LSD
illegally, that just supports my statement that the laws had nothing
to do with protecting users (nor protecting the public from users).

> Oh, wait, you're just some moronic nerd who's done too many
> psychedelics to even think like a normal person.  Congrats, paranoid
> dweeb.

No, but you're just some Internet dork who substitutes ignorant
personal attacks for reasoned arguments.

M_P  wrote:

>> >Correct: the ban had nothing to do with protecting users (nor
>> >protecting the public from users), but was simply coercive conformism.
>>
>> Yeah, man, they were so terrified of the imminent and overwhelming
>> massive overthrow of the government (because there were so many more
>> millions of young hippies than conservative rednecks and rich people)
>
>Straw man;


You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.


> I didn't say anything about government being "terrified,"
>nor does government need to be terrified in order to pass laws that
>exceed its proper authority.


Lol, well, now that you mention it, there actually was a very good
reason for it being banned, but I wouldn't expect you to have a clue
about it, so never mind.


>> that they merely forced people to buy LSD illegally even though they
>> could easily do so.
>
>Who could easily do what? If you mean that people could easily buy LSD
>illegally,


What are you, illiterate?  Yes, that's exactly what I meant because
it's exactly what I said.  Grow a freakin' dick.


> that just supports my statement that the laws had nothing
>to do with protecting users (nor protecting the public from users).


No, it doesn't, because that part of your statement had no real
relevance to anything.  I suppose I'd "concede" it, except that it
wasn't the meat of your statement in the first place.


>> Oh, wait, you're just some moronic nerd who's done too many
>> psychedelics to even think like a normal person.  Congrats, paranoid
>> dweeb.
>
>No, but you're just some Internet dork who substitutes ignorant
>personal attacks for reasoned arguments.


Hahaha, it may be a personal attack, but it ain't ign'ant.  And it
didn't substitute.  You blew off my response as a "straw man", but it
wasn't.  It was sarcasm exposing how meaningless your statement was.
You claim that there was some "coercive conformism" at work, well,
what the fuck would be the point of that, other than to prevent
dissent?  Maybe it's exaggerated to talk about the overthrow of the
government, but you should be adult enough to get the point.

But of course, you vainly view me as a kid, because I make personal
attacks.  I couldn't take such laughable piss-ant nerdy sheltered
private-school whining b.s. personally if I tried, because I'm too
secure in my own ability to make and withstand personal attacks.

-- 
Joel Crump

On May 1, 3:11 pm, Joel  wrote:
> M_P  wrote:

> >> >Correct: the ban had nothing to do with protecting users (nor
> >> >protecting the public from users), but was simply coercive conformism.
>
> >> Yeah, man, they were so terrified of the imminent and overwhelming
> >> massive overthrow of the government (because there were so many more
> >> millions of young hippies than conservative rednecks and rich people)
>
> >Straw man;
>
> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.

You don't *need* to, but you did.

> > I didn't say anything about government being "terrified,"
> >nor does government need to be terrified in order to pass laws that
> >exceed its proper authority.
>
> Lol, well, now that you mention it, there actually was a very good
> reason for it being banned,

Provide evidence for your claim.

> but I wouldn't expect you to have a clue
> about it, so never mind.
>
> >> that they merely forced people to buy LSD illegally even though they
> >> could easily do so.
>
> >Who could easily do what? If you mean that people could easily buy LSD
> >illegally,
>
> What are you, illiterate?  Yes, that's exactly what I meant because
> it's exactly what I said.

What you said had so many pronouns it could be read in any number of
ways.

> Grow a freakin' dick.

Your gay fantasies are off-topic for these newsgroups.

> > that just supports my statement that the laws had nothing
> >to do with protecting users (nor protecting the public from users).
>
> No, it doesn't, because that part of your statement had no real
> relevance to anything.

Learn to read. It was entirely relevant to the quoted passage about
the reason for LSD bans.

> I suppose I'd "concede" it, except that it
> wasn't the meat of your statement in the first place.

So what in your fevered imagination was "the meat of my statement"?

> >> Oh, wait, you're just some moronic nerd who's done too many
> >> psychedelics to even think like a normal person.  Congrats, paranoid
> >> dweeb.
>
> >No, but you're just some Internet dork who substitutes ignorant
> >personal attacks for reasoned arguments.
>
> Hahaha, it may be a personal attack, but it ain't ign'ant.  And it
> didn't substitute.  You blew off my response as a "straw man", but it
> wasn't. It was sarcasm

Sophomoric at best.

> exposing how meaningless your statement was.
> You claim that there was some "coercive conformism" at work, well,
> what the fuck would be the point of that, other than to prevent
> dissent?  Maybe it's exaggerated to talk about the overthrow of the
> government,

Hence the straw man.

> but you should be adult enough to get the point.

"Adult" clearly has little to do with your posts.

> But of course, you vainly view me as a kid,

I didn't say one word about your age. Your insecurities are showing.

> because I make personal
> attacks.  I couldn't take such laughable piss-ant nerdy sheltered
> private-school whining b.s. personally if I tried, because I'm too
> secure in my own ability to make and withstand personal attacks.

You're "secure in your ability to make personal attacks"? That's like
saying you're secure in your ability to smear feces on the walls ...
which I'll bet you are, at that.

M_P  wrote:

>> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.
>
>You don't *need* to, but you did.


False.  You keep repeating that to avoid the discussion.


>> Lol, well, now that you mention it, there actually was a very good
>> reason for it being banned,
>
>Provide evidence for your claim.
>
>> but I wouldn't expect you to have a clue
>> about it, so never mind.


I *knew* you'd do that!  Oh man, I read you just like a book.  The
words "never mind" are there for a reason.  If you need evidence,
that's exactly why you don't know about it, kiddo.


>> >> that they merely forced people to buy LSD illegally even though they
>> >> could easily do so.
>>
>> >Who could easily do what? If you mean that people could easily buy LSD
>> >illegally,
>>
>> What are you, illiterate?  Yes, that's exactly what I meant because
>> it's exactly what I said.
>
>What you said had so many pronouns it could be read in any number of
>ways.


Oh, OK.  Sorry, dude.  I'll be sure to write like a quiet little
library-visiting sweater-and-khakis-wearing fruitcake, so my posts
will be clearer.  Fuckin' college drone.  I moved on from college-
level writing.  You just lack basic comprehension.  It wasn't unclear
at all, if you possess a phallus.


>> Grow a freakin' dick.
>
>Your gay fantasies are off-topic for these newsgroups.


Haha, that wasn't bad.  Not great, but not bad.


>> > that just supports my statement that the laws had nothing
>> >to do with protecting users (nor protecting the public from users).
>>
>> No, it doesn't, because that part of your statement had no real
>> relevance to anything.
>
>Learn to read. It was entirely relevant to the quoted passage about
>the reason for LSD bans.


Yeah, I guess, but it wasn't your basic point.


>> I suppose I'd "concede" it, except that it
>> wasn't the meat of your statement in the first place.
>
>So what in your fevered imagination was "the meat of my statement"?


"the ban ... was simply coercive conformism"  Not very fevered, is it?


>> Hahaha, it may be a personal attack, but it ain't ign'ant.  And it
>> didn't substitute.  You blew off my response as a "straw man", but it
>> wasn't. It was sarcasm
>
>Sophomoric at best.


You know what, you aren't in a position to say that.  Granted, I
wasn't exactly imitating Barack Obama at a campaign rally, but I
wasn't trying to.  I like being what you would conceive of as
"sophomoric", because it's funny.  But my point was not sophomoric,
period.

It is laughable that people still take the '60s so damn seriously.
LSD is not without significance, to be sure, but it didn't have all
that much to do with progress, and your implication had to be that the
government felt there was something socially "dangerous" about it.
It's like LSD was seen as a commie conspiracy, or something.  But feel
free to clarify that.


>> exposing how meaningless your statement was.
>> You claim that there was some "coercive conformism" at work, well,
>> what the fuck would be the point of that, other than to prevent
>> dissent?  Maybe it's exaggerated to talk about the overthrow of the
>> government,
>
>Hence the straw man.


Heh, no.  How can you be so one-dimensionally serious?  Don't you have
any buzz to you, any spirit?


>> but you should be adult enough to get the point.
>
>"Adult" clearly has little to do with your posts.


You'd be surprised.


>> But of course, you vainly view me as a kid,
>
>I didn't say one word about your age. Your insecurities are showing.


I didn't imply anything about age.  Kid is figurative, obviously.  Oh,
I forgot, you take everything literally where convenient to evading
discussion (as if you're the first to try that one on me).


>> because I make personal
>> attacks.  I couldn't take such laughable piss-ant nerdy sheltered
>> private-school whining b.s. personally if I tried, because I'm too
>> secure in my own ability to make and withstand personal attacks.
>
>You're "secure in your ability to make personal attacks"? That's like
>saying you're secure in your ability to smear feces on the walls ...
>which I'll bet you are, at that.


I notice you left out the "and withstand" between "make" and "personal
attacks".  That really takes it purely out of context.

-- 
Joel Crump

On May 1, 4:06 pm, Joel  wrote:
> M_P  wrote:

> >> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.
>
> >You don't *need* to, but you did.
>
> False.  You keep repeating that to avoid the discussion.

LOL! *You're* the one who just now deleted the substantive content.

> >> Lol, well, now that you mention it, there actually was a very good
> >> reason for it being banned,
>
> >Provide evidence for your claim.

Still waiting ....

> >> but I wouldn't expect you to have a clue
> >> about it, so never mind.
>
> I *knew* you'd do that!  Oh man, I read you just like a book.  The
> words "never mind" are there for a reason.  If you need evidence,
> that's exactly why you don't know about it, kiddo.

You have yet to establish that there's anything to know. Who do you
think you're impressing with these pretensions to knowledge?

> >> >> that they merely forced people to buy LSD illegally even though they
> >> >> could easily do so.
>
> >> >Who could easily do what? If you mean that people could easily buy LSD
> >> >illegally,
>
> >> What are you, illiterate?  Yes, that's exactly what I meant because
> >> it's exactly what I said.
>
> >What you said had so many pronouns it could be read in any number of
> >ways.
>
> Oh, OK.  Sorry, dude.  I'll be sure to write like a quiet little
> library-visiting sweater-and-khakis-wearing fruitcake, so my posts
> will be clearer.  Fuckin' college drone.  I moved on from college-
> level writing.

You mean you "moved on" from clear unambiguous writing. And you
consider that progress?

> You just lack basic comprehension.  It wasn't unclear
> at all,

Yes it was, for the reasons I explained and you failed to
substantively address.

> if you possess a phallus.

More gay fantasies.

> >> Grow a freakin' dick.
>
> >Your gay fantasies are off-topic for these newsgroups.
>
> Haha, that wasn't bad.  Not great, but not bad.
>
> >> > that just supports my statement that the laws had nothing
> >> >to do with protecting users (nor protecting the public from users).
>
> >> No, it doesn't, because that part of your statement had no real
> >> relevance to anything.
>
> >Learn to read. It was entirely relevant to the quoted passage about
> >the reason for LSD bans.
>
> Yeah, I guess, but it wasn't your basic point.

What do you think was my basic point?

> >> I suppose I'd "concede" it, except that it
> >> wasn't the meat of your statement in the first place.
>
> >So what in your fevered imagination was "the meat of my statement"?
>
> "the ban ... was simply coercive conformism"

Wrong as usual. That was merely the least insane remaining alternative
after protection was ruled out.

> Not very fevered, is it?

Not a bit. Are you engaged in some sort of projection here?

> >> Hahaha, it may be a personal attack, but it ain't ign'ant.  And it
> >> didn't substitute.  You blew off my response as a "straw man", but it
> >> wasn't. It was sarcasm
>
> >Sophomoric at best.
>
> You know what, you aren't in a position to say that.  Granted, I
> wasn't exactly imitating Barack Obama at a campaign rally, but I
> wasn't trying to.  I like being what you would conceive of as
> "sophomoric", because it's funny.

To you.

> But my point was not sophomoric,
> period.
>
> It is laughable that people still take the '60s so damn seriously.
> LSD is not without significance, to be sure, but it didn't have all
> that much to do with progress, and your implication had to be that the
> government felt there was something socially "dangerous" about it.

If you have a better explanation, now's the time.

> It's like LSD was seen as a commie conspiracy, or something.  But feel
> free to clarify that.
>
> >> exposing how meaningless your statement was.
> >> You claim that there was some "coercive conformism" at work, well,
> >> what the fuck would be the point of that, other than to prevent
> >> dissent?  Maybe it's exaggerated to talk about the overthrow of the
> >> government,
>
> >Hence the straw man.
>
> Heh, no.  How can you be so one-dimensionally serious?  Don't you have
> any buzz to you, any spirit?

Too much spirit to be entertained by your drivel.

> >> but you should be adult enough to get the point.
>
> >"Adult" clearly has little to do with your posts.
>
> You'd be surprised.
>
> >> But of course, you vainly view me as a kid,
>
> >I didn't say one word about your age. Your insecurities are showing.
>
> I didn't imply anything about age.  Kid is figurative, obviously.  Oh,
> I forgot, you take everything literally where convenient to evading
> discussion (as if you're the first to try that one on me).

Here come the laughable evasions.

> >> because I make personal
> >> attacks.  I couldn't take such laughable piss-ant nerdy sheltered
> >> private-school whining b.s. personally if I tried, because I'm too
> >> secure in my own ability to make and withstand personal attacks.
>
> >You're "secure in your ability to make personal attacks"? That's like
> >saying you're secure in your ability to smear feces on the walls ...
> >which I'll bet you are, at that.
>
> I notice you left out the "and withstand" between "make" and "personal
> attacks".  That really takes it purely out of context.

No it doesn't; you made two claims in one sentence, one of which ("I'm
secure in my own ability to withstand personal attacks") I have no
problem with, so I addressed only the other one.

M_P  wrote:

>> >> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.
>>
>> >You don't *need* to, but you did.
>>
>> False.  You keep repeating that to avoid the discussion.
>
>LOL! *You're* the one who just now deleted the substantive content.


I didn't "delete" anything.  The previous posts are still there.
Excessive quoting is bad form.

But you're the one who still didn't reply to the substantive content.
Nice try at deflecting.


>> >> Lol, well, now that you mention it, there actually was a very good
>> >> reason for it being banned,
>>
>> >Provide evidence for your claim.
>
>Still waiting ....


I already made it clear I'm not going to waste my breath on it.  It's
not even the only issue in play, as I'll go into in a later section of
this reply.


>> >> but I wouldn't expect you to have a clue
>> >> about it, so never mind.
>>
>> I *knew* you'd do that!  Oh man, I read you just like a book.  The
>> words "never mind" are there for a reason.  If you need evidence,
>> that's exactly why you don't know about it, kiddo.
>
>You have yet to establish that there's anything to know. Who do you
>think you're impressing with these pretensions to knowledge?


How much do you think I give a shit?


>> >What you said had so many pronouns it could be read in any number of
>> >ways.
>>
>> Oh, OK.  Sorry, dude.  I'll be sure to write like a quiet little
>> library-visiting sweater-and-khakis-wearing fruitcake, so my posts
>> will be clearer.  Fuckin' college drone.  I moved on from college-
>> level writing.
>
>You mean you "moved on" from clear unambiguous writing. And you
>consider that progress?


Quite correct.  Absolutely.  Except that my writing is clear and
unambiguous, if your brain doesn't fall apart while reading it.  If it
does, that's hardly my fault.  I'm just smarter than you.


>> You just lack basic comprehension.  It wasn't unclear
>> at all,
>
>Yes it was, for the reasons I explained and you failed to
>substantively address.


You said I used many pronouns.  I don't consider that especially
"substantive".  A specific deconstruction of what I wrote would be
more helpful.


>> >So what in your fevered imagination was "the meat of my statement"?
>>
>> "the ban ... was simply coercive conformism"
>
>Wrong as usual. That was merely the least insane remaining alternative
>after protection was ruled out.


It was all you said!  Good God, go back and read your first reply in
the thread.  It was quite short.


>> Not very fevered, is it?
>
>Not a bit. Are you engaged in some sort of projection here?


Oh, come on.  You know I was referring to what you said about my
"fevered imagination" (which, ironically enough, is utter projection).


>> You know what, you aren't in a position to say that.  Granted, I
>> wasn't exactly imitating Barack Obama at a campaign rally, but I
>> wasn't trying to.  I like being what you would conceive of as
>> "sophomoric", because it's funny.
>
>To you.


I guarantee it's funny to others.  Perhaps not the boring ones,
though.


>> But my point was not sophomoric,
>> period.
>>
>> It is laughable that people still take the '60s so damn seriously.
>> LSD is not without significance, to be sure, but it didn't have all
>> that much to do with progress, and your implication had to be that the
>> government felt there was something socially "dangerous" about it.
>
>If you have a better explanation, now's the time.


I certainly do.  The congress, and the DEA, have shown a very clear
pattern with regard to recreational drugs.  Once it reaches a certain
prevalence, it's banned.  It happened then with LSD, and in the '80s
with MDMA, and in recent times with some of the research chemicals.
It's about consistency with pot being illegal, as much as it is about
the recreational use of these drugs themselves (except for something
like 2C-T-7, which caused deaths).

Of course, they can never overcome the inconsistency with alcohol
being legal, so it's just more typical American redneck fascist
bullshit (on the surface, which is the element we're discussing here).


>> >You're "secure in your ability to make personal attacks"? That's like
>> >saying you're secure in your ability to smear feces on the walls ...
>> >which I'll bet you are, at that.
>>
>> I notice you left out the "and withstand" between "make" and "personal
>> attacks".  That really takes it purely out of context.
>
>No it doesn't; you made two claims in one sentence, one of which ("I'm
>secure in my own ability to withstand personal attacks") I have no
>problem with, so I addressed only the other one.


They are interrelated.  Didn't you ever take calculus?  I make these
attacks with the expectation that it will draw fire on me, but I am
confident in my ability to reason in such an adversarial format.  I
therefore expect my opponents to be comfortable with it, as well,
because I prefer arguing with people who are on my level.  I'm on the
fence, as far as you go, in that regard.  You've shown a decent
ability, but a lack of intellectual honesty.

-- 
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:
> M_P  wrote:
>
>>>> Correct: the ban had nothing to do with protecting users (nor
>>>> protecting the public from users), but was simply coercive
>>>> conformism.
>>>
>>> Yeah, man, they were so terrified of the imminent and overwhelming
>>> massive overthrow of the government (because there were so many more
>>> millions of young hippies than conservative rednecks and rich
>>> people)
>>
>> Straw man;
>
>
> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.

Then why did you, jackass ?

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote:

>> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.
>
>Then why did you, jackass ? 


Aww, do I detect emotional discomfort, sweetheart?  GROW A DICK.
There was no straw-man argument, you just don't like people being
realistic and rational about your Fairy Godmother LSD and the 1960s,
because you're a sodomite LSD lover who can't get the fuck over it.

No one cares.  How do you even know Hofmann originally discovered LSD?
Do you believe everything you read?  I'm not asserting that he didn't,
since there's no proof that he didn't, but it's widely believed that
it was a cover story for the U.S. military's originating it.  You're
just a chump, dude.  You're way out of your league with me.  The other
guy was at least less emotionally vulnerable.

-- 
Joel Crump

On May 1, 12:31 pm, Joel  wrote:
> M_P  wrote:
> >Correct: the ban had nothing to do with protecting users (nor
> >protecting the public from users), but was simply coercive conformism.
>
> Yeah, man, they were so terrified of the imminent and overwhelming
> massive overthrow of the government (because there were so many more
> millions of young hippies than conservative rednecks and rich people)
> that they merely forced people to buy LSD illegally even though they
> could easily do so.
>
> Oh, wait, you're just some moronic nerd who's done too many
> psychedelics to even think like a normal person.  Congrats, paranoid
> dweeb.
>

Mirrors can lie you know.

> --
> Joel Crump

Joel wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote:
>
>>> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.
>>
>> Then why did you, jackass ?
>
>
> Aww, do I detect emotional discomfort, sweetheart?  GROW A DICK.

You're latent repressed homosexuality is showing again, Joely.

> There was no straw-man argument,

You're lying again.

Why do you lie?

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote:

>>>> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.
>>>
>>> Then why did you, jackass ?
>>
>> Aww, do I detect emotional discomfort, sweetheart?  GROW A DICK.
>
>You're latent repressed homosexuality is showing again, Joely.


You seem interested.


>> There was no straw-man argument,
>
>You're lying again.
>
>Why do you lie?


Why are you delusional?

In other words, you're beneath me, tripper boy.

-- 
Joel Crump

On May 1, 4:54 pm, Joel  wrote:
> M_P  wrote:

> >> >> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.
>
> >> >You don't *need* to, but you did.
>
> >> False.  You keep repeating that to avoid the discussion.
>
> >LOL! *You're* the one who just now deleted the substantive content.
>
> I didn't "delete" anything.  The previous posts are still there.

Feeble wordplay.

> Excessive quoting is bad form.

Insufficient quoting is evasive.

> But you're the one who still didn't reply to the substantive content.

Wrong again.

> Nice try at deflecting.
>
> >> >> Lol, well, now that you mention it, there actually was a very good
> >> >> reason for it being banned,
>
> >> >Provide evidence for your claim.
>
> >Still waiting ....
>
> I already made it clear I'm not going to waste my breath on it.

ROTFL! You've already spent several times as much "breath" on
pretending you know something as it would take to say what you knew
(if you knew anything).

> It's
> not even the only issue in play, as I'll go into in a later section of
> this reply.
>
> >> >> but I wouldn't expect you to have a clue
> >> >> about it, so never mind.
>
> >> I *knew* you'd do that!  Oh man, I read you just like a book.  The
> >> words "never mind" are there for a reason.  If you need evidence,
> >> that's exactly why you don't know about it, kiddo.
>
> >You have yet to establish that there's anything to know. Who do you
> >think you're impressing with these pretensions to knowledge?
>
> How much do you think I give a shit?

Enough to keep posting with your pretenses but no actual knowledge.

> >> >What you said had so many pronouns it could be read in any number of
> >> >ways.
>
> >> Oh, OK.  Sorry, dude.  I'll be sure to write like a quiet little
> >> library-visiting sweater-and-khakis-wearing fruitcake, so my posts
> >> will be clearer.  Fuckin' college drone.  I moved on from college-
> >> level writing.
>
> >You mean you "moved on" from clear unambiguous writing. And you
> >consider that progress?
>
> Quite correct.  Absolutely.  Except that my writing is clear and
> unambiguous, if your brain doesn't fall apart while reading it.  If it
> does, that's hardly my fault.  I'm just smarter than you.

Wrong as usual ... read on.

> >> You just lack basic comprehension.  It wasn't unclear
> >> at all,
>
> >Yes it was, for the reasons I explained and you failed to
> >substantively address.
>
> You said I used many pronouns.  I don't consider that especially
> "substantive".  A specific deconstruction of what I wrote would be
> more helpful.

OK, I'll spoonfeed you: in "they merely forced people to buy LSD
illegally even though they could easily do so" the second "they" could
refer either to government (the first "they") or to "people" and the
"so" could refer either to "buy LSD illegally" or to "force people to
buy LSD illegally".

> >> >So what in your fevered imagination was "the meat of my statement"?
>
> >> "the ban ... was simply coercive conformism"
>
> >Wrong as usual. That was merely the least insane remaining alternative
> >after protection was ruled out.
>
> It was all you said!  Good God, go back and read your first reply in
> the thread.  It was quite short.

I also said the part you replaced with "..." above -- which was in
fact the meat of my statement.

[flaccid tu quoque deleted]

> >> You know what, you aren't in a position to say that.  Granted, I
> >> wasn't exactly imitating Barack Obama at a campaign rally, but I
> >> wasn't trying to.  I like being what you would conceive of as
> >> "sophomoric", because it's funny.
>
> >To you.
>
> I guarantee it's funny to others.

The other mouth-breathers.

> Perhaps not the boring ones, though.

Feel free to stop posting.

> >> But my point was not sophomoric,
> >> period.
>
> >> It is laughable that people still take the '60s so damn seriously.
> >> LSD is not without significance, to be sure, but it didn't have all
> >> that much to do with progress, and your implication had to be that the
> >> government felt there was something socially "dangerous" about it.
>
> >If you have a better explanation, now's the time.
>
> I certainly do.  The congress, and the DEA, have shown a very clear
> pattern with regard to recreational drugs.  Once it reaches a certain
> prevalence, it's banned.  It happened then with LSD, and in the '80s
> with MDMA, and in recent times with some of the research chemicals.
> It's about consistency with pot being illegal, as much as it is about
> the recreational use of these drugs themselves (except for something
> like 2C-T-7, which caused deaths).

Even if you could establish that as a tenable account -- and to do
that you'd have to show that the drugs you mention were in fact each
banned at the same prevalence -- you'd still have an account that as
it stands is completely consistent with coercive conformism.

> Of course, they can never overcome the inconsistency with alcohol
> being legal, so it's just more typical American redneck fascist
> bullshit (on the surface, which is the element we're discussing here).

"Redneck fascist bullshit" differs from "coercive conformism" how?

> >> >You're "secure in your ability to make personal attacks"? That's like
> >> >saying you're secure in your ability to smear feces on the walls ...
> >> >which I'll bet you are, at that.
>
> >> I notice you left out the "and withstand" between "make" and "personal
> >> attacks".  That really takes it purely out of context.
>
> >No it doesn't; you made two claims in one sentence, one of which ("I'm
> >secure in my own ability to withstand personal attacks") I have no
> >problem with, so I addressed only the other one.
>
> They are interrelated.  Didn't you ever take calculus?  I make these
> attacks with the expectation that it will draw fire on me, but I am
> confident in my ability to reason in such an adversarial format.

Personal attacks are antithetical to reason.

> I
> therefore expect my opponents to be comfortable with it, as well,
> because I prefer arguing with people who are on my level.

I.e. in the gutter.

> I'm on the
> fence, as far as you go, in that regard.  You've shown a decent
> ability,

I hope not.

> but a lack of intellectual honesty.

Bullshit.

"Joel"  wrote in message 
news:mjam141mqhls3gmmrb3hnsmb0od1tkrsha@4ax.com...
> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote:
>
>>>>> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.
>>>>
>>>> Then why did you, jackass ?
>>>
>>> Aww, do I detect emotional discomfort, sweetheart?  GROW A DICK.
>>
>>You're latent repressed homosexuality is showing again, Joely.
>
>
> You seem interested.

Why would anyone be interested in your latent homosexuality?


>
>
>>> There was no straw-man argument,
>>
>>You're lying again.
>>
>>Why do you lie?
>
>
> Why are you delusional?
>
> In other words, you're beneath me, tripper boy.

More of your homo-erotic fantasies?

"Reality_Check©"  wrote:

>>>> Aww, do I detect emotional discomfort, sweetheart?  GROW A DICK.
>>>
>>>You're latent repressed homosexuality is showing again, Joely.
>>
>> You seem interested.
>
>Why would anyone be interested in your latent homosexuality?


<yawn>


>> In other words, you're beneath me, tripper boy.
>
>More of your homo-erotic fantasies?


You wish.

-- 
Joel Crump

"Joel"  wrote in message 
news:2u5n145unpims10uck4368uf4u8fui5ftb@4ax.com...
> "Reality_Check©"  wrote:
>
>>>>> Aww, do I detect emotional discomfort, sweetheart?  GROW A DICK.
>>>>
>>>>You're latent repressed homosexuality is showing again, Joely.
>>>
>>> You seem interested.
>>
>>Why would anyone be interested in your latent homosexuality?
>
>
> <yawn>

Open wider ... and no teeth this time, m'kay?

>
>
>>> In other words, you're beneath me, tripper boy.
>>
>>More of your homo-erotic fantasies?
>
>
> You wish.

Sez the fairy.

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote

> He reports in his 1979 autobiography LSD, My Problem Child, that he became 
> restless and dizzy when he accidentally ingested the compound while making 
> it-and "perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic pictures, 
> extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colors" for about 
> two hours.

I don't think 'ingested' is the proper term. He absorbed it through his 
fingertips, if I'm not mistaken.

> The very next day (April 19, 1943), he swallowed 0.25 milligram of the 
> acid to confirm that it had caused his odd symptoms.

I thought it was more like 400 micrograms. Since no known compound at the 
time was so powerfully active in such small doses, he planned to start out 
small and gradually raise the dose, only to find that he had actually taken 
enough to launch him on a fully intense trip about as powerful as almost any 
trip gets. Since 250 micrograms is a relatively moderate dose, it was my 
impression that it was closer to 400, which is about where the law of 
diminishing returns kicks in and any additional increases in dose only 
lengthen the trip without making it any more intense. But I could be wrong.

> Overcome by dizziness and anxiety, he asked an assistant to bicycle him 
> home; once there, he writes that he was overcome by feelings that he might 
> die (prompting a later call to his physician), along with delusions that 
> included perceiving a kindly neighbor transformed into a malevolent witch.

It's important to note that this is an incomplete and unbalanced account of 
the experience. It started out as frightening and terrible, yes. But later 
on he regained his equilibrium and began to actually enjoy it.

> Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, his employer at the time, tried to promote LSD as 
> a drug to treat psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia under the 
> trade name Delysid by sending samples to psychiatrists-and the compound 
> was briefly used as the treatment du jour in conjunction with 
> psychoanalysis.

It wasn't just 'briefly used as the treatment du jour'. In fact, by the 
early Sixties there were hundreds of formal papers being published a year by 
scientists about the powerful therapeutic potential it was showing, as well 
as the potential it demonstrated for teaching us a great deal about how the 
human brain actually works. It was only when the political climate became 
too hostile, with the government passing laws against it and strongarming 
the scientific community into going along with its party line that it was 'a 
dangerous drug with no legitimate medical uses', that this promising 
research was abandoned.

-- 
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com

Foreman: Mocking me saves lives?

House: The hospital will probably build you a statue one day. You know, with 
a 'kick me' sign on the back. You know, when you think about it, the more I 
mock you, the more it shows I have respect for you.

Foreman: Or you made up that BS because you like humiliating me.

House: Wouldn't rule that out completely.

"Sean Carroll"  wrote in message 
news:481c75ce$0$4045$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net...
> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote
>
>> He reports in his 1979 autobiography LSD, My Problem Child, that he 
>> became restless and dizzy when he accidentally ingested the compound 
>> while making it-and "perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic 
>> pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of 
>> colors" for about two hours.
>
> I don't think 'ingested' is the proper term. He absorbed it through his 
> fingertips, if I'm not mistaken.
>
>> The very next day (April 19, 1943), he swallowed 0.25 milligram of the 
>> acid to confirm that it had caused his odd symptoms.
>
> I thought it was more like 400 micrograms. Since no known compound at the 
> time was so powerfully active in such small doses, he planned to start out 
> small and gradually raise the dose, only to find that he had actually 
> taken enough to launch him on a fully intense trip about as powerful as 
> almost any trip gets. Since 250 micrograms is a relatively moderate dose,


Street level doses are estimated to be 100 mics .

> it was my impression that it was closer to 400, which is about where the 
> law of diminishing returns kicks in and any additional increases in dose 
> only lengthen the trip without making it any more intense. But I could be 
> wrong.

Experiment on yourself and report back to us.


>
>> Overcome by dizziness and anxiety, he asked an assistant to bicycle him 
>> home; once there, he writes that he was overcome by feelings that he 
>> might die (prompting a later call to his physician), along with delusions 
>> that included perceiving a kindly neighbor transformed into a malevolent 
>> witch.
>
> It's important to note that this is an incomplete and unbalanced account 
> of the experience. It started out as frightening and terrible, yes. But 
> later on he regained his equilibrium and began to actually enjoy it.

That's what *she* said ...

>
>> Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, his employer at the time, tried to promote LSD as 
>> a drug to treat psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia under the 
>> trade name Delysid by sending samples to psychiatrists-and the compound 
>> was briefly used as the treatment du jour in conjunction with 
>> psychoanalysis.
>
> It wasn't just 'briefly used as the treatment du jour'. In fact, by the 
> early Sixties there were hundreds of formal papers being published a year 
> by scientists about the powerful therapeutic potential it was showing, as 
> well as the potential it demonstrated for teaching us a great deal about 
> how the human brain actually works. It was only when the political climate 
> became too hostile, with the government passing laws against it and 
> strongarming the scientific community into going along with its party line 
> that it was 'a dangerous drug with no legitimate medical uses', that this 
> promising research was abandoned.

In the prudish U$A ...

In article ,
Joel   wrote:
>"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote:
>
>>> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.
>>
>>Then why did you, jackass ? 
>
>
>Aww, do I detect emotional discomfort, sweetheart?  GROW A DICK.
>There was no straw-man argument, you just don't like people being
>realistic and rational about your Fairy Godmother LSD and the 1960s,
>because you're a sodomite LSD lover who can't get the fuck over it.
>
>No one cares.  How do you even know Hofmann originally discovered LSD?
>Do you believe everything you read?  I'm not asserting that he didn't,
>since there's no proof that he didn't, but it's widely believed that
>it was a cover story for the U.S. military's originating it. 

Who besides you?

On Sat, 3 May 2008 10:25:18 -0400, "Sean Carroll"
 wrote:

>"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote
>
>> He reports in his 1979 autobiography LSD, My Problem Child, that he became 
>> restless and dizzy when he accidentally ingested the compound while making 
>> it-and "perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic pictures, 
>> extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colors" for about 
>> two hours.
>
>I don't think 'ingested' is the proper term. He absorbed it through his 
>fingertips, if I'm not mistaken.
>
>> The very next day (April 19, 1943), he swallowed 0.25 milligram of the 
>> acid to confirm that it had caused his odd symptoms.
>
>I thought it was more like 400 micrograms. Since no known compound at the 
>time was so powerfully active in such small doses, he planned to start out 
>small and gradually raise the dose, only to find that he had actually taken 
>enough to launch him on a fully intense trip about as powerful as almost any 
>trip gets. Since 250 micrograms is a relatively moderate dose, it was my 
>impression that it was closer to 400, which is about where the law of 
>diminishing returns kicks in and any additional increases in dose only 
>lengthen the trip without making it any more intense. But I could be wrong.

The minute size of an LSD dose is a real problem - it's pretty much
impossible for most people who encounter the drug to make more than an
educated guess about how much they're taking - one compares the
effects to those reported by people who apparently did know the
amount, which is hardly an accurate technique.

In the case of Hofmann, unless there's evidence to the contrary, I'd
tend to trust his abilities as a scientist, and say that he got the
weight right. It might be that he was more sensitive to the drug than
most people (Aldous Huxley also seems to have been very sensitive to
it - the dosages he mentions are very small).

>> Overcome by dizziness and anxiety, he asked an assistant to bicycle him 
>> home; once there, he writes that he was overcome by feelings that he might 
>> die (prompting a later call to his physician), along with delusions that 
>> included perceiving a kindly neighbor transformed into a malevolent witch.
>
>It's important to note that this is an incomplete and unbalanced account of 
>the experience. It started out as frightening and terrible, yes. But later 
>on he regained his equilibrium and began to actually enjoy it.

It's a pretty good example of the "set and setting" principle. He had
very odd effects for which he wasn't prepared - so they were
frightening. It's a testament to his character that he appears to
have, at some point, realised that despite the magnitude of the
subjective effects, he wasn't actually about to die of some exotic
poisoning.

I wonder whether the decision to ban the drug was partly based on the
results of the US government's research, which, as it involved giving
people LSD in completely inappropriate environments, and in some
cases, without them even knowing they were being dosed, was an almost
(but not quite) certain way of producing a bad trip./

>
>> Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, his employer at the time, tried to promote LSD as 
>> a drug to treat psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia under the 
>> trade name Delysid by sending samples to psychiatrists-and the compound 
>> was briefly used as the treatment du jour in conjunction with 
>> psychoanalysis.
>
>It wasn't just 'briefly used as the treatment du jour'. In fact, by the 
>early Sixties there were hundreds of formal papers being published a year by 
>scientists about the powerful therapeutic potential it was showing, as well 
>as the potential it demonstrated for teaching us a great deal about how the 
>human brain actually works. It was only when the political climate became 
>too hostile, with the government passing laws against it and strongarming 
>the scientific community into going along with its party line that it was 'a 
>dangerous drug with no legitimate medical uses', that this promising 
>research was abandoned.

As fucking criminal an act as that of the catholic church with regard
to Galileo's telescope. 

pj

On Sat, 3 May 2008 09:53:14 -0600, "Reality_Check©" 
wrote:


>"Sean Carroll"  wrote in message 
>news:481c75ce$0$4045$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net...
>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote
>>
>>> He reports in his 1979 autobiography LSD, My Problem Child, that he 
>>> became restless and dizzy when he accidentally ingested the compound 
>>> while making it-and "perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic 
>>> pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of 
>>> colors" for about two hours.
>>
>> I don't think 'ingested' is the proper term. He absorbed it through his 
>> fingertips, if I'm not mistaken.
>>
>>> The very next day (April 19, 1943), he swallowed 0.25 milligram of the 
>>> acid to confirm that it had caused his odd symptoms.
>>
>> I thought it was more like 400 micrograms. Since no known compound at the 
>> time was so powerfully active in such small doses, he planned to start out 
>> small and gradually raise the dose, only to find that he had actually 
>> taken enough to launch him on a fully intense trip about as powerful as 
>> almost any trip gets. Since 250 micrograms is a relatively moderate dose,
>
>
>Street level doses are estimated to be 100 mics .

by whom? If I have a bunch of sugar cubes with acid on them, I can say
something like "if I take one, I get a mild stimulation that lasts all
day, if I take three, I get a moderately strong trip, but can still go
out and interact with people, but if I take 8, I need to be indoors,
with someone to look out for me". None of this translates to "a cube
is x micrograms of LSD". The only way I can get to that is by reading
thirty year old accounts of people taking known doses and comparing
the effects.

If I have a bottle of LSD dissolved in liquid, how is a "dose" 100
mics? Is a dose a drop? then the dose doesn't just depend on the
strength of the acid, but on the size of the hole in the bottle....

>> it was my impression that it was closer to 400, which is about where the 
>> law of diminishing returns kicks in and any additional increases in dose 
>> only lengthen the trip without making it any more intense. But I could be 
>> wrong.
>
>Experiment on yourself and report back to us.

???

Unless he has access to accurately measured doses, or the equipment to
measure the doses, I'm not sure how you think he can do that. 

I'd love to be accurate and say, "I took 500 micrograms of LSD, and
this is what happened" (something I could do with reasonable
confidence with nn-DMT, ketamine, MDMA etc.), but the fact is, unless
you have access to very specialized equipment, the best you can do
these days is to buy a reasonable quantity at a time, try it, and
decide on how much to take based on what effect the previous trips
from the same batch had.

pj

pj wrote:
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 09:53:14 -0600, "Reality_Check©" 
> wrote:
>
>
>> "Sean Carroll"  wrote in message
>> news:481c75ce$0$4045$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net...
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote
>>>
>>>> He reports in his 1979 autobiography LSD, My Problem Child, that he
>>>> became restless and dizzy when he accidentally ingested the
>>>> compound while making it-and "perceived an uninterrupted stream of
>>>> fantastic pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense,
>>>> kaleidoscopic play of colors" for about two hours.
>>>
>>> I don't think 'ingested' is the proper term. He absorbed it through
>>> his fingertips, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>
>>>> The very next day (April 19, 1943), he swallowed 0.25 milligram of
>>>> the acid to confirm that it had caused his odd symptoms.
>>>
>>> I thought it was more like 400 micrograms. Since no known compound
>>> at the time was so powerfully active in such small doses, he
>>> planned to start out small and gradually raise the dose, only to
>>> find that he had actually taken enough to launch him on a fully
>>> intense trip about as powerful as almost any trip gets. Since 250
>>> micrograms is a relatively moderate dose,
>>
>>
>> Street level doses are estimated to be 100 mics .
>
> by whom?

The labs that analyze the street level LSD ... and the DeadHeads
who purchase grams of pure crystal LSD and soak them into
10,000 blotter hits ...



>If I have a bunch of sugar cubes with acid on them, I can say
> something like "if I take one, I get a mild stimulation that lasts all
> day, if I take three, I get a moderately strong trip, but can still go
> out and interact with people, but if I take 8, I need to be indoors,
> with someone to look out for me". None of this translates to "a cube
> is x micrograms of LSD". The only way I can get to that is by reading
> thirty year old accounts of people taking known doses and comparing
> the effects.

Bullshit. You could ask the person who purchased the gram
of LSD and created the cubes or blotter exactly how many hits
he made ... or you could send your dose off to a lab for analysis.

>
> If I have a bottle of LSD dissolved in liquid, how is a "dose" 100
> mics?

If you have a pig that flys, how is a pickle full of seeds?

> Is a dose a drop? then the dose doesn't just depend on the
> strength of the acid, but on the size of the hole in the bottle....

Is peanut butter a vegetable ?

>
>>> it was my impression that it was closer to 400, which is about
>>> where the law of diminishing returns kicks in and any additional
>>> increases in dose only lengthen the trip without making it any more
>>> intense. But I could be wrong.
>>
>> Experiment on yourself and report back to us.
>
> ???
>
> Unless he has access to accurately measured doses, or the equipment to
> measure the doses, I'm not sure how you think he can do that.
>
> I'd love to be accurate and say, "I took 500 micrograms of LSD, and
> this is what happened" (something I could do with reasonable
> confidence with nn-DMT, ketamine, MDMA etc.), but the fact is, unless
> you have access to very specialized equipment, the best you can do
> these days is to buy a reasonable quantity at a time, try it, and
> decide on how much to take based on what effect the previous trips
> from the same batch had.

Absurd bullshit.