Slashdot Mirror


'Godfather of Ecstasy,' Chemist Sasha Shulgin Dies Aged 88

EwanPalmer (2536690) writes "Alexander 'Sasha' Shulgin, the chemist, pharmacologist and author known for popularizing the drug MDMA as well as creating and synthesizing hundreds of psychoactive drugs, has died aged 88. Shulgin was known for discovering, creating and personally testing hundreds of psychoactive chemicals and documenting the results, along with his wife, in his books and papers. He is also known for introducing the positive aspects of MDMA to psychologists, which in term helped it become a popular recreational drug in the 1980s." With less irritation from auto-playing video sound, try the BBC.

164 comments

  1. And thousands of candy ravers ... by gstoddart · · Score: 0

    And thousands of candy ravers bit down on their soothers and took another one.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, am not really sure what happened to rave culture when it went to the states..

    2. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Better? Say, where is that magical land where the drugs are BETTER today?

      If anything, you get more junk, more crap, more additives and less of the good stuff.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is no longer 1999. Raves still exist, but pacifiers are far, far less common and the drugs are far better quality.

      I think if the drugs were better the soothers would have increased since MDMA has a tendency of making you grind your teeth in a brutal way

    4. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your claim is completely false. You used to need to be really connected to the underworld to get quality drugs. Now it's as simple as scoring some bitcoins and making a purchase on Agora or Silk Road. Btw, Silk Road has nearly paid everyone back the bitcoins lost in their breach. Many people thought the operators were thieves like at several other black market sites, but they worked for free to pay us all back and prove the doubters wrong.

    5. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      same thing as everything else it had its soul stripped and turned into mass market crap

    6. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Better? Say, where is that magical land where the drugs are BETTER today?

      If anything, you get more junk, more crap, more additives and less of the good stuff.

      Weed is better today then it has been in the past.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    7. Re: And thousands of candy ravers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, Silk Road 1.0, or one of the 2.0's?

    8. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Better? Say, where is that magical land where the drugs are BETTER today?

      If anything, you get more junk, more crap, more additives and less of the good stuff.

      Actually, it's gone in a circle. Things were all mixed up and still are if you are getting "X", but if you are buying "Molly", then you should be getting the pure MDMA. There is a market for it so somebody is fulfilling it, but it says something when things have gotten such as a new name has to be come up with to describe the pure form of what you always thought you were buying to begin with.

    9. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by Bramlet+Abercrombie · · Score: 1

      They were charging $5 for a bottle of water and people left and did their own things.

    10. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weed is of way better quality in California than it was before. Posting anonymous for obvious reasons.

    11. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by Kingofearth · · Score: 1

      *should* is the key word. Have you ever tested the molly you buy or are offered? 75% of the stuff I see passed off as molly doesn't even have any MDMA. And even the stuff that tests for MDMA is likely to be cut. At least that's how it is here in the midwest.

    12. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think if the drugs were better the soothers would have increased since MDMA has a tendency of making you grind your teeth in a brutal way

      When I grew up, it was common practice for a Raver/recreation drug user to look up everything about a drug before using it. There were many sources on the internet even back then (e.g. erowid), and BBS' before that. It was very common knowledge back then, that if you were grinding your teeth, it meant a large amount of the pseudoephedrine was stuck in the ephedrine stage (or it was cut), tl;dr not pure MDMA; pure MDMA has nognawing side-effect. Again, back in the day everyone knew this. Nowadays people are just like "yay molly! I heard it on a Miley Cyrus song! wooo!"

    13. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, y'know, there's this thing called chewing gum. Although the flip-side is that the constant chewing can give really sore jaw muscles the following day.

      The quality nowadays is generally better, the complaints are more from people buying $/€/£2 pills on the street & then acting surprised when all they get is a caffeine rush. If you only go shopping in the bargain bin, of course you'll only get shit.

      From the BBC:

      "Illegal drugs are now cheaper and purer globally than at any time over the last 20 years, a report has [praised]."

    14. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      I've never so much as tried marijuana or any other illegal drugs, any painkillers, nicotine, etc. The only drug I have experience with is alcohol.

      Now, in my later years, my thoughts regarding intoxicants have changed. It's very interesting to m to read conversations like this--the experiences are so very far from my own. Even coming across these situations (e.g., talking about different kind of MDMA you see on a regular basis!) is far outside my ken. I had thought the Silk Road might be interesting to try--good thing I missed out, given what went down there.

      I wonder if LSD will ever been legal within my lifetime. I kind of doubt it.

    15. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Visit Washington or Colorado. Worth the field trip.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      This just in: Legalizing a drug improves its quality due to competition.

      Can I get a "duh"?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re: And thousands of candy ravers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's completely wrong. Any amphetamine in a high enough dose will cause teeth grinding all by itself. As a former nineties raver myself, the quality of what is sold as ecstasy today is far below what it was back then. There are too many easily available research chemicals that people try to pass off as the real thing, but nothing can quite compare to MDMA.

    18. Re: And thousands of candy ravers ... by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

      Wait, Silk Road 1.0, or one of the 2.0's?

      Yes.

    19. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by K10W · · Score: 1

      I've never so much as tried marijuana or any other illegal drugs, any painkillers, nicotine, etc. The only drug I have experience with is alcohol.

      Now, in my later years, my thoughts regarding intoxicants have changed. It's very interesting to m to read conversations like this--the experiences are so very far from my own. Even coming across these situations (e.g., talking about different kind of MDMA you see on a regular basis!) is far outside my ken. I had thought the Silk Road might be interesting to try--good thing I missed out, given what went down there.

      I wonder if LSD will ever been legal within my lifetime. I kind of doubt it.

      there is a fair bit of legitimacy coming back to LSD. I always considered it a potential ground breaking area of therapeutics. The whole street drug thing, Tim Leary and all the rest of that nonsense got a knee jerk reaction which led to it being dropped for therapeutic evaluation and Sandoz wouldn't touch it anymore with all the publicity and so on. It's more complex than this but still I feel we threw out a VERY promising class of therapeutic agents/method AND assistance in deep insights into cognition and so on.

      Things are changing now and big inroads into an area of therapeutics are possible with human studies being authorised recently. MDMA is already producing good results in otherwise untreatable battle related PTSD as well as other things. LSD has so much to offer us I hope to see it legitimized for therapeutic use in my life if we get the research on how to use it effectively.

      My biggest doubt is more the funding since developing therapeutics isn't where the money is, oncology gets more of the cash and other areas just left dry. That is the way the global pharma industry is I am afraid.

    20. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Not actually true. This is DEA propaganda. It is based on the DEA pulverizing some crappy Mexican sun cured brick weed loaded with stems, leaf, and seed all mixed together and measuring the THC in the past and then measuring properly grown hydroponic bud today.

      It is true that higher quality weed is more commonly available today but it existed all along. When the DEA was measuring that brick there was already plenty of commonly available Skunk (~12%) as the mainstay in the US. Haze (remember Jimi Hendrix) which is ~20% and lots of other strains every bit as strong as they are today. People knew how to grow marijuana properly then, even more people know how to do it now.

    21. Re:And thousands of candy ravers ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Stop buying from the streets. The dark web is where you find consistently good quality drugs these days.

  2. And thousands of candy ravers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is no longer 1999. Raves still exist, but pacifiers are far, far less common and the drugs are far better quality.

  3. At least.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He lived a truly ecstatic life.

  4. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am the one who dies!

  5. It's just sad... by Jahoda · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How sad it is that psychoactive chemicals like this and LSD, which have been well demonstrated to have profoundly positive psychological effects (under responsible use) still cannot be used by responsible, grown adults? They can be the key to truly overcoming the psychological demons seem to be the human condition, and unlocked our true potential as self-aware, well-adjusted human beings.

    1. Re:It's just sad... by vonWoland · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is the "stupid and reckless" get caught, but those who, for whatever reason, are inducted into the underground economy that supplies the "contributing members of society," that do the time.

    2. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's too black and white especially when there are people like me that have extremely addictive personalities. You probably don't know much about that, and if you don't be glad because it's not easy. I'm the type if 100 will kill me I'll take 99 and there is no calming the beast, all reason goes out the window until I get that 99. I cannot even answer why I'm like that because I don't even understand it myself.

      I am the gray.

    3. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      LSD is very common, as is pure, locally-manufactured MDMA. When is the last time you've heard of producers of these things getting caught? It's _extremely_ rare. No border crossings. No chemical supply trail. No idiotic acquaintances to squeal on them.

      Drugs busts are almost always importers and distributors of hard drugs and crunchy shit-pills. This is not the same thing as quality hippie drugs.

      I mean, sure, it happens, but it's a teeny tiny drop in the bucket compared to the number of people actually producing good shit.

    4. Re:It's just sad... by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Troll

      Responsibly means using it in a controlled manner, where there is a sober and knowledgeable guidance to the usages. Preventing OD, insuring their body can handle it and that they have taking the correct precautions.
      The problems with these drugs is they either block and/or excite parts of your brain functionally. In essence have your brain function erratically.

      Now these people are using this to get cool dreams, feel bliss, or see things, while otherwise they are healthy adults, then they are misusing the drug. Aka Drug Abuse. As well many of these drugs have long term effects that build up over time. So the first time you are 99.99999% Ok, but after a while your brain gets more damaged.

      So for these drugs, you need to know if what they are curing is worse then the damage it causes. Drug Culture, is being responsible only that they are not OD enough to kill themselves, or let it get in the way of their productive lives. But they are still slowly messing up their brains.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      LSD is very common, as is pure, locally-manufactured MDMA.

      Where do you live? What is the radius from your location where LSD and "pure, locally-manufactured MDMA" is available to consumers? (coordinates in decimal preferred)

      Thanks

    6. Re:It's just sad... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      There's no logic in laws concerning sex, drugs and copyright. Don't even try to come up with sane, logical arguments. They don't work in a world that's ruled by corporate interest and thinkofthechildren.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:It's just sad... by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Oh c'mon, you have to try harder to earn your keep, narc.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:It's just sad... by Ionized · · Score: 1

      let me introduce you to this little drug called 'alcohol', and his friends caffeine & nicotine

    9. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you, but want to mention that the dissociatives are much more useful for reprogramming yourself into a superior human. One ketamine trip cured my life-long depression, made me extremely happy with my simple life, took me from being a slob to having a neat, organized house, and led to getting into great physical shape. MXE works just as well, and is much less expensive, but has the downside of drugging you for about 10 hours, where ketamine wears of in just a few hours.

      These drugs can also cause complete immersion in movies, TV, and video games by triggering a delusion that you're in the game. The complex delusions wear of with the drug and sanity returns with a greater appreciation for the miracle of life.

    10. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I've used LSD and DMT several times. They were the most enlightening experiences of my life and left me with no dependence on either chemical. In fact, I have no desire to use either again any time soon, not because I had a negative experience but rather because I don't believe repeating the experiences would offer any further benefits. The "problem" with the drugs is that they offer a completely novel perspective of the universe through altered states of mind that makes one question nearly every aspect of their existence, including the nature of authority. Such thoughts undermine the system designed to keep the vast majority of people passively institutionalized starting with school, then corporate careers, and finally nursing homes. It's no surprise that authority figures see them as the bane of their existence. I'm just thankful that we live in a time when technology allows for the open but still anonymous sale of such goods. The worst crime of all is robbing others of all that life has to offer for entirely selfish reasons.

    11. Re:It's just sad... by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      I lived withing spitting distance of a meth house a couple of years ago, in a nice neighborhood. Wouldn't have known anything were it not for the fact that it got raided. 'Course compared to LSD, Meth is nasty.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    12. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shuglin lived to 88! The notion that all drugs, with repeated use, lead to brain damage is simply not true. Many things simply distort pathways temporarily and get metabolized.

      You're a victim of the common state-sponsored paranoia associated with such things. Some drugs are going to alter your brain chemistry over time, yes, but many others - including many phenethelamines (sp), like Shulgin was an expert in, are not believed to carry very much risk.

      The real world is not as black-and-white as your world.

    13. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Those are three very unrelated substances.

      Alcohol is a carbohydrate. It's food. It also happens to block up various glucose consumption mechanisms in your nervous system. Your body deals with it rather quickly. You also glean some calories from it.

      Caffeine is a stimulant. It may be considered a "drug" in light of that, but it's quite mild. It's also hard to acquire naturally. It's difficult to get an overdose without a lot of heavily industrialized refinement, and even then, it's difficult to get beyond the taste. Your body generally has no use for it, and most of what goes in to your body goes right back out when you pee.

      Nicotine is a toxin best suited to killing bugs. It can kill people too, it just takes longer. Some people speed up the process by also inhaling smoke, which is an asphyxiant and causes lung inflammation and disease. Smoke ranks right up there with asbestos and fiberglass on the list of things that cause rapid lung damage. Nicotine, well, not so much. Nicotine-laced material directly applied to mucus membrane tissue for extended periods of time, however, is a known localized carcinogen.

    14. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I isn't clear if this is what you meant, but I agree that, given the current culture, it is next to impossible to get actual data for determining safe/unsafe doses.

      But I disagree with the notion that using a drug recreationally automatically equates to drug abuse.

    15. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Adult use isn't the reason why MDMA is illegal. It's because of kids getting their hands on it and using it. The shit destroys their lives, and I would know.

      I had a friend in high school who first tried MDMA at around 15. He was out with friends, they went to buy pot, and wound up buying MDMA instead. He was addicted to it for something like two years, and ran away from home within a year of his first experience with it. The only reason he stopped was that he was hit by a car one night while high, and wound up in the hospital, where they found pills on him and called the cops. By the time he got cleaned up, he was out of high school and had totally missed going to college. Fortunately, a few years later when I met him, he went back to school and now as far as I know he's doing okay.

      What stuck with me was his advice to me when he told me about the whole thing, which boiled down to "Don't ever do MDMA. Do pot, do coke, do anything but it."

      I personally don't do any recreational drugs and have no plans to, but I know I'll never touch MDMA.

    16. Re:It's just sad... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      For the most part, the police aren't all that interested in arresting drug users (assuming their drug use is not creating a public problem). They're more interested in the distributors.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    17. Re:It's just sad... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      But they are still slowly messing up their brains.

      That's no different than aging. At least drugs make you feel good.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    18. Re:It's just sad... by sjames · · Score: 1

      At least in the case of LSD, you would be hard pressed to OD. Neither is considered an addiction risk.

      There is still no good reason a psychiatrist shouldn't be able to prescribe them for use in a controlled therapy session.

    19. Re:It's just sad... by Ionized · · Score: 1

      yes, all three substances affect the body quite differently if you take an up-close look at their chemical mechanisms. however that is completely tangential to the point i was making, or the post i was replying to.

      read the post i was responding to again, and see if you can't grok my meaning.

    20. Re:It's just sad... by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Now these people are using this to get cool dreams, feel bliss, or see things, while otherwise they are healthy adults, then they are misusing the drug. Aka Drug Abuse. As well many of these drugs have long term effects that build up over time. So the first time you are 99.99999% Ok, but after a while your brain gets more damaged.

      You're equating changes in the brain with "brain damage". Many drugs enact changes within the brain, some permanent and some temporary. The term "brain damage" is a loaded and inflammatory term signifying that all changes as a result of drugs are bad. Some are not bad. Some might either be good or bad depending on who is defining what is desirable in a brain.

      I struggled for years with depression, anger management, and had difficulty relating to people. After smoking weed for a few months, my depression and short temper have almost vanished completely. I can look at people now and have an inkling of what emotions they might be feeling, and I don't say so many insensitive things anymore. I also sleep much better. I get upset when I see people say that weed is a wonderdrug, and I don't mean to imply that. It has made my quality of life much better though. You might describe the effects on my brain as "increased feminine qualities", which sounds bad and is how this kind of change is often described. Maybe that's exactly what my brain needed though. Not all changes in brain chemistry are bad.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    21. Re:It's just sad... by jythie · · Score: 1

      While I am in favor of legalization and letting people decide, one thing to keep in mind is that psychoactive chemicals are kinda like chloroform when it it comes to danger, the dosage for effectiveness and the dosage for risky side effects have a pretty big overlap. The difference between people who have a reaction and who do not is not in the strength or maturity of the user, but often just down to luck. Granted heavy users have their own risks, but even the 'responsible' recreational dosages can randomly do lasting damage.

      One of the problems with drugs being underground is we tend to get all our perceptions from, well, direct perceptions, so if nothing goes wrong with our local community (or we can write off bad trips as 'the person must not have been responsible) then it gives the perception of being much safer then it actually is. Which is one of the reasons I feel they should be legal, there would be much better visibility.

    22. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now these people are using this to get cool dreams, feel bliss, or see things, while otherwise they are healthy adults, then they are misusing the drug. Aka Drug Abuse. As well many of these drugs have long term effects that build up over time. So the first time you are 99.99999% Ok, but after a while your brain gets more damaged.

      You're equating changes in the brain with "brain damage".

      Correction, they are equating changes in the brain from using drugs recreationally with "brain damage". Presumably that means they are ok with changes in the brain from using drugs to "be normal". Which might seem hypocritical to you (I know it seems that way to me), but I know plenty of people who besmirch recreational drugs that "alter consciousness" while simultaneously taking their own "conscious altering" drugs in order to "fit in". Or worse, forcing such drugs on their kids.

    23. Re:It's just sad... by kick6 · · Score: 1

      How sad it is that psychoactive chemicals like this and LSD, which have been well demonstrated to have profoundly positive psychological effects (under responsible use) still cannot be used by responsible, grown adults? They can be the key to truly overcoming the psychological demons seem to be the human condition, and unlocked our true potential as self-aware, well-adjusted human beings.

      The propensity to get in a 4000 lb. weapon, and go on a killing spree (aka driving) is too large. And, yes, I realize alcohol is the same way, but at least we have a roadside test with relatively accurate results for that. Beyond that, I personally have no problem with legalizing all the things. I just don't want to be on the road with people blasted 20 different ways.

    24. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not if they're white anyway.

    25. Re:It's just sad... by Kinky_B · · Score: 1

      Nicotine ... also used to create mutations in biochem.... much better and cheaper than those evil radiation inducing mutations too... ah well people will try anything

    26. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DEA agent detected

    27. Re:It's just sad... by digsbo · · Score: 0

      Wait, let me understand: MDMA is illegal so kids can't get it. And kids are getting it despite being illegal. So you're arguing for failed policies by your own admission? Asinine.

    28. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should your timid nature interfere with adults access to chemicals? Your fear does not trump other people's rights.
       
      The people who would drive while out of their minds on drugs are the exact same people who are driving drunk now. New drugs do not make people irresponsible. People are inherently either responsible or not.

    29. Re:It's just sad... by vux984 · · Score: 2

      let me introduce you to this little drug called 'alcohol', and his friends caffeine & nicotine

      Let me introduce you to water and the effect of water intoxication, a potentially fatal disturbance to brain functioning that results from drinking too much water.

      Anything is toxic in sufficient quantities. What matters is dose, abuse factors, and so on. While one can abuse ANYTHING a morning cup of coffee is NOT the same thing as taking LSD.

      Alcohol, caffeine etc are also both 'traditional' and 'natural'. That's not to say they are less potent per se, but it is not inconsistent or wrong for society to have different acceptance of alcohol vs lsd simply due to the history. Alcohol has a long and respected history - craftsman making beer, wine, scotch etc compete over taste not 'how drunk you get'. There is a long and well respected culture behind it.

      LSD has no such traditions. Its just a chemical to get you high. It has medicinal value -- and I'd support making it a prescription drug. But there's no reason to sell LSD next to the pop at 7-11.

      If alcohol were 'invented' today, sure we might well make it a prescription drug, but it wasn't, so its not, and its got all this other stuff going on. So it gets special treatment... that's life.

    30. Re:It's just sad... by koreanbabykilla · · Score: 1

      What in the FUCK are you talking about no chemical supply trail???

      look at these links, you know a bunch of people just have all that shit laying around, plus all the glass you need?

      http://www.erowid.org/archive/...
      http://www.erowid.org/archive/...

      and last in honor of shulgan, his synth:

      http://www.erowid.org/library/...

      SYNTHESIS: (from MDA) A solution of 6.55 g of 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) as the free base and 2.8 mL formic acid in 150 mL benzene was held at reflux under a Dean Stark trap until no further H2O was generated (about 20 h was sufficient, and 1.4 mL H2O was collected). Removal of the solvent gave an 8.8 g of an amber oil which was dissolved in 100 mL CH2Cl2, washed first with dilute HCl, then with dilute NaOH, and finally once again with dilute acid. The solvent was removed under vacuum giving 7.7 g of an amber oil that, on standing, formed crystals of N-formyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine. An alternate process for the synthesis of this amide involved holding at reflux for 16 h a solution of 10 g of MDA as the free base in 20 mL fresh ethyl formate. Removal of the volatiles yielded an oil that set up to white crystals, weighing 7.8 g.

      A solution of 7.7 g N-formyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine in 25 mL anhydrous THF was added dropwise to a well stirred and refluxing solution of 7.4 g LAH in 600 mL anhydrous THF under an inert atmosphere. The reaction mixture was held at reflux for 4 days. After being brought to room temperature, the excess hydride was destroyed with 7.4 mL H2O in an equal volume of THF, followed by 7.4 mL of 15% NaOH and then another 22 mL H2O. The solids were removed by filtration, and the filter cake washed with additional THF. The combined filtrate and washes were stripped of solvent under vacuum, and the residue dissolved in 200 mL CH2Cl2. This solution was extracted with 3x100 mL dilute HCl, and these extracts pooled and made basic with 25% NaOH. Extraction with 3x75 mL CH2Cl2 removed the product, and the pooled extracts were stripped of solvent under vacuum. There was obtained 6.5 g of a nearly white residue which was distilled at 100-110 C at 0.4 mm/Hg to give 5.0 g of a colorless oil. This was dissolved in 25 mL IPA, neutralized with concentrated HCl, followed by the addition of sufficient anhydrous Et2O to produce a lasting turbidity. On continued stirring, there was the deposition of fine white crystals of 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine hydrochloride (MDMA) which were removed by filtration, washed with Et2O, and air dried, giving a final weight of 4.8 g.

      (from 3,4-methylenedioxyphenylacetone) This key intermediate to all of the MD-series can be made from either isosafrole, or from piperonal via 1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-nitropropene. To a well stirred solution of 34 g of 30% hydrogen peroxide in 150 g 80% formic acid there was added, dropwise, a solution of 32.4 g isosafrole in 120 mL acetone at a rate that kept the reaction mixture from exceeding 40 C. This required a bit over 1 h, and external cooling was used as necessary. Stirring was continued for 16 h, and care was taken that the slow exothermic reaction did not cause excess heating. An external bath with running water worked well. During this time the solution progressed from an orange color to a deep red. All volatile components were removed under vacuum which yielded some 60 g of a very deep red residue. This was dissolved in 60 mL of MeOH, treated with 360 mL of 15% H2SO4, and heated for 3 h on the steam bath. After cooling, the reaction mixture was extracted with 3x75 mL Et2O, the pooled extracts washed first with H2O and then with dilute NaOH, and the solvent removed under vacuum The residue was distilled (at 2.0 mm/108-112 C, or at about 160 C at the water pump) to provide 20.6 g of 3,4-methylenedio

    31. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. I've used both meth and LSD and taking meth actually feels rewarding, unlike LSD. However, a bad trip on LSD is far worse than the dysphoric comedown from meth.

    32. Re:It's just sad... by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      So, because you knew a 15 year old with a drug problem (and much more likely problems at home), and so MDMA is bad, recreational drugs are bad, and it's not possible that they could offer anything positive to the experience of being alive. Gotcha. Ok, well, me personally, I credit MDMA and LSD with some of the most profound discoveries of self and the world around me, and I would be worse off for never having taken them.

    33. Re:It's just sad... by koreanbabykilla · · Score: 2

      Phenethylamines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

      Phenethylamine /fnlmin/ (PEA), -phenethylamine, or phenylethylamine is an organic compound and a natural monoamine alkaloid, a trace amine, and also the name of a class of chemicals with many members well known for psychoactive drug and stimulant effects.[1] Phenylethylamine functions as a neuromodulator or neurotransmitter in the mammalian central nervous system.[2] It is biosynthesized from the amino acid phenylalanine by enzymatic decarboxylation. In addition to its presence in mammals, phenethylamine is found in many other organisms and foods, such as chocolate, especially after microbial fermentation. It is sold as a dietary supplement for purported mood and weight loss-related therapeutic benefits; however, orally ingested phenethylamine experiences extensive first-pass metabolism by monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B), which turns it into phenylacetic acid. This prevents significant concentrations from reaching the brain in low doses.[3][4]

      The group of phenethylamine derivatives is referred to as the phenethylamines. Substituted phenethylamines, substituted amphetamines, and substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines (MDxx) are a series of broad and diverse classes of compounds derived from phenethylamine that include stimulants, psychedelics, and entactogens, as well as anorectics, bronchodilators, decongestants, and antidepressants, among others.

    34. Re:It's just sad... by scubamage · · Score: 2

      Some drugs do lead to brain damage. For instance, there was a study (later retracted) which showed 3,4 MDMA caused brain damage in recreational doses in rhesus monkeys. The study was retracted because the chemical provider had goofed, and provided pure reagent grade methamphetamine instead of MDMA. So, while MDMA was clinically safe, it put a BIG warning sign on meth, and for good reason.

    35. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " They're more interested in the distributors." Only because competition eats into their profit margins.

    36. Re:It's just sad... by un1nsp1red · · Score: 1

      "Of all drug-related arrests, 82% are for possession, and more than half of those are for marijuana. Basically, the war on drugs winds up being focused on marijuana possession, despite the fact that it is less addictive than other illegal drugs and is not pharmacologically linked with violence or overdose the way alcohol is." http://healthland.time.com/201... Most of the busts are small-time end-users.

    37. Re:It's just sad... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm one of them. I'm not saying the police don't arrest users, I'm saying that their sting operations are not targeted at someone buying a dime bag of weed. They want the guys selling pounds of it. I would wager that the vast majority of drug arrests are people who were investigated for another crime and found to have drugs. Those people, whether or not they were on drugs at the time, were creating a public problem that the police responded to (in our case, we managed to fill the hallway of the dorm with smoke - we created a problem). There's no one staking out my house just waiting for me to go buy a bag, and if I'm running around my house singing after eating MDMA no one is calling the cops. The war on drugs is a terrible policy, but that doesn't mean the police are going out with the intention of busting small-time users.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    38. Re:It's just sad... by Kingofearth · · Score: 1

      Why do so many people seem to think it's axiomatic that all drugs cause brain damage? Most psychedelic drugs are not known to cause any neurological damage. Our brains are constantly restructuring themselves to adapt and learn from the current environment, and drugs, like everything else you come in contact with, will affect that. But in general that's a neutral change; it's not necessarily good or bad, it could be either.

      A few people do end up rewiring their brains in negative ways from psychedelics, but most people generally find the changes beneficial if they are using it safely (which I suppose is a subjective term). Many people who have used psychedelics report being better able to connect with people and nature, being able to watch the flow of their thoughts more easily, and having abstract thinking come more easily. Not to mention the new perspective on what it means to be you and the subjective nature of reality that the psychedelic experience itself gives you.

      If you think people take LSD "to get cool dreams, feel bliss, or see things" you obviously don't know much about it.

    39. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some people find the drug that fucks them up real good, and its THAT drug thats bad. Except for some other dude its perfectly fine.

      I know a guy who closed himself up after a bad trip on LSD became a shallow husk of himself, another women who after a month or two on Pot went crazy (literally).
      And me. i had severe paranoia attacks on Meth and consequently E (which are mostly Meth and MDMA an sometimes a little LSD for good measure).

      I can onyl speak for myself here... I was a loner and a nerd, found a group of friends and we all did drugs together. Pot, LSD, E's, Meth, Coke.. My favorite was LSD and E, but i noticed that over a period of a few years i became more and more paranoid when i took Meth and E, but i didnt stop because its what we did. every weekend out partying doing lots of drugs. It was a blast until it became a bad trip EVERY time.
      Still i did not stop, until one day it fucked me up real good! I became so paranoid i could not leave the house, thought every one was out to get me and all that standard bullshit lol
      Thankfully that mostly went away with time, several years in fact.

      But i was no victim of "bad drugs", i chose this. all of it, even if i was a stupid kid who didnt know shit.

      And if you think im a naysayer i should tell you i still smoke Pot whenever i can, and i even do Meth now and then.
      And if i ever get my hands on som Shrooms or LSD il take those too!

      Does this mean im a drug addict? Or am i just using the tools that are available to me, so that i can see/do/think things one normally would not be able to do in the "normal" state? I choose to think the latter.

      The lesson to take from this, for anyone who cares to read it is this: Do your drug(s) in moderation, and at least try to take a break now and then. You body and your brain will thank you!

    40. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your knee jerk jesus attitude about "Drug Culture" is not wanted here.

    41. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like it's is confusing methamphetamines and MDMA. MDMA is generally not considered addictive in that manner, simply because it uses up your serotonin, take it again the same day, or the next few days, and it will do bugger all.

      Meth however, can be rather nasty and quite addictive..

    42. Re:It's just sad... by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      http://www.erowid.org/archive/...
      http://www.erowid.org/archive/...

      and last in honor of shulgan, his synth:

      http://www.erowid.org/library/...

      Brightstar's way of doing things should be included. http://www.erowid.org/archive/... was a link from one posted.

      Good stuff (the articles).

    43. Re: It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To paraphrase...

      Group of adolescent humans embark on a quest for vegetation and deviate into a pill/crystal/powder purchase. ...yawn...

      Thanks for the yarn...

    44. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymice · · Score: 1

      Alcohol's legal, and that has a far higher rate of physical addiction. Alcohol addiction is nasty in fact, as forcing an addict to go cold turkey would kill them. People also get psychologically addicted to adrenaline (which we create quite efficiently ourselves).
      Banning something because some people might misuse it is silly, however if you wish to go down that route, you'd also have to ban alcohol, tobacco...guns?

    45. Re:It's just sad... by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      "The shit destroys their lives, and I would know." "Fortunately, a few years later when I met him, he went back to school and now as far as I know he's doing okay."

      Perhaps his life wasn't quite so destroyed then? Maybe we should have finished him off by putting him in prison, to protect him from himself (but not from the rapists) ?

      We have a guy who died at 88 after trying 1000s of drugs all his life and performing at a technical career with a high degree of competence.

      We have a kid who learned the hard way that trying to escape the unsatisfactory nature of life by using drugs can lead to a destructive spiral, which fortunately self-limited and he apparently decided to clean up and try living life on life's terms.

      This isn't an uncommon story, as the exact same thing happened to me 26 years ago, after which I went back to school and undertook to perform at a high level in a technical career.

      Maybe all the propaganda is over-blown?

      Maybe people with psychological stress and poor social lives are prone to addiction, but it's possible to recover with little or no detectable permanent harm?

      Maybe if there were no drugs, they would have gotten into some other sort of trouble anyway?

      So many questions deserving of straightforward scientific exploration. One thing prevents gaining a deeper understanding of why people do what they do, the role which drugs play, the potential for discovering drugs with most of the desirable effects of current drugs, but fewer of the undesirable effects, and how people can better help themselves (note I did NOT say "how we can help people") to solve life's problems without having to turn to drugs.

      The war on drugs.

    46. Re:It's just sad... by Mr.CRC · · Score: 2

      Don't you understand? We can win the war on drugs but we need more funding for police, the DEA, the FBI, the NSA, more crates of guns to send to Mexican drug lords, more police powers to search anyone at any time for any reason, and even for no reason, and to get Afganistan under control. We can do this!

    47. Re:It's just sad... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      LSD has no such traditions. Its just a chemical to get you high.

      LSD is a special case because it's very new. There hasn't been enough time to develop traditions around its use. That's not true for other, very similar drugs. These drugs have long traditions of usage outside the west. That includes peyote, psychedelic mushrooms, Ayahuasca, and ibogaine, to name just a few.

      Typically these drugs are taken in group settings with an experienced person or group of people to guide the experience. It's really completely contrary to our current medical system where the patient is given a drug and sent on their way. Medical practitioners have sometimes used them in a one-on-one setting, which can probably work as well, but still represents an inherent clash with the medical establishment, and is quite contrary to how the traditional cultures where these drugs were first used have used them.

      I'd totally agree with you that none of these drugs should be available at the corner 7-11. These drugs aren't compatible with our consumer driven culture. They're all very powerful drugs that invoke a profound experience on the user and need to be respected. But also our medical establishment really isn't suited to their use either. So what's to be done?

      --
      AccountKiller
    48. Re:It's just sad... by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      One of the main points of legalization is harm reduction.

      Ruining people's lives by charging them with crimes, subjecting them to the most dangerous environment in the world (prison), potentially causing them to get blacklisted from employment forever, forcing everyone to pay ever more tax dollars for ever more government police state powers and abuses while the "meth epidemic" and the "violence in Mexico" continues to worsen, etc. are far more harmful to individuals and society as a whole than just letting people buy the damn stuff in a pharmacy.

      Sign a waiver so that you can't sue the pharmacist for any consequences of using the drug and that you were provided and understood either written or verbal instructions on how to dose correctly. Pay the piddly little $10/gram that methamphetamine, cocaine, MDMA, or heroin, or whatever the heck you want would actually cost in a minimally regulated open market (basically the only rule needs to be--what's in the bottle must be what's printed on the label), and go your merry way with 10x less incentive to commit the crime of theft to support your habit IF you get addicted, and far better chances of being able to be employed and live a "normal" (responsible) life since you won't be getting hauled off by Mr. Officer.

      In fact--you will be less likely to get addicted at all, since more addictive means of administration are actually economic optimizations that people do because of the high price of black market drugs! Ie., taking meth in pill form is far less addictive than smoking or injecting, and users will be more likely to use it in pill form if it is legal and inexpensive.

      Additionally, rather than 20000 pages of new laws trying to prevent kids from getting it (with the real intention being to ensure that the police/prison/industrial complex STILL has a continual supply of new arrestees and inmates), let's just keep this really simple: The waiver can include a statement that you may be sued for damages if you transfer or sell the drug to a child (other than an immediate family member--can't have mom and pop getting sent up the river if Jr. cracks the medicine lockbox), and/or criminal charges of misdemeanor (not felony!!!) reckless endangerment if you intentionally transfer or sell the drug to a child who subsequently commits a crime, becomes addicted, or suffers a medically harmful consequence.

      The fundamental problem here is that: people want to use drugs.

      It's something about how our brains work. It's not that different from why we desire and have sex. No, from the perspective of our brains, reproduction is irrelevant. We want the high--the stimulation of the dopamine reward circuits, and the other chemical responses.

      Natural inclinations that do not directly lead to harming others (ie., acts that in and of themselves do not deprive others of life, liberty, or property, ) must never be made crimes!

      Also, some "social problems" simply can't be "solved." Declare them solved by simply not defining them as problems anymore. Human society is not perfect.

    49. Re:It's just sad... by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      Then drastically de-regulate insurance so that ins. cos. need only comply with rules regarding actuarial solvency, and let them charge people rates that actually have some correlation with the risk generated by a person's behavior.

      Yeah, yeah, I know, "I would never trust some corporation more than I trust the good and noble government."

      Only idiots hopelessly indoctrinated in government schools with dumbed down/censored summaries of the Constitution could possibly prefer the dangers of living in a society where you can get taken to jail if you dare refuse to get breathalyzed, ultimately venipunctured, and potentially even taken to a hospital and probed up the ass for 12 hours (this actually happened to an innocent person), all on the whim of some cop, rather than deal with insurance companies in an open competitive market.

      No one ever gets taken away in hand cuffs by a corporation!

      The ins. cos. will have a strong incentive to develop certifications and standards for the inevitable self-driving cars, which stoned people can populate in order to get absurdly low ins. rates, and so the most risky thing they will do is accidentally instructing the car to take them to Nova Scotia or some similarly tripped out destination.

    50. Re:It's just sad... by F34nor · · Score: 1

      As a fan of hallucinogens let me just say LSD is COMPLETE shit. Just because Freud was the first psychologist doesn't mean Freudians are going to help you with you mental issues. Just because LSD was the first hallucinogen doesn't mean you should take it. It is a rough large dirty molecule that make you see things but can make you VERY unhappy. I liken it to this video. Old shit may look good but it isn't always the best choice.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      If you want to get high their are many choices. Choose one that matches your goals. Choose one with limited side effects. Choose one with a duration that works for you.

      As to traditions they are just a crutch. If you are thoughtful and have a goal in mind for your experience and don't have preexisting conditions you don't need religion to ease you into this stuff.

    51. Re:It's just sad... by F34nor · · Score: 1

      No the researcher was a fraud. The chemical provider sued him and said basically that their whole business model was based on not ever fucking up an order for any reason whatsoever.

      As to meth being bad watch "Road Side Profits" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Any drug Tim Leary says is bad is VERY FUCKING BAD.

    52. Re:It's just sad... by marxmarv · · Score: 1

      Sure, they, can, but how do you put self-aware, well-adjusted human beings into a hierarchy beneath you? That's why these things are hard to get.

      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
    53. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should also legalize murder because despite it being illegal, there are still murders occuring. Makes a lot of sense.

    54. Re:It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alcohol is a carbohydrate. It's food.[...]

      I would not call it a carbohydrate, and deduce from that, that it is food.

      Yes, it contains carbon and a OH group, but what you generally mean by carbohydrate is sugar or starch (though cellulose would qualify, imho)..

      There are a lot of molecules that contain carbon with hydrogen and OH groups, that would be very, very bad for you. Methanol would be an obvious example at hand... Phenol is and other fun drink for people you dislike. The list goes on...

    55. Re:It's just sad... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Where did I state that that stuff was good for either, or stating that this stuff you should use instead?

      Alcohol main issue is that it is ingrained with our culture, so getting rid of it will cause a ton of problems. Proposing starting new cultures where we take additional stuff that is bad for you is actually just stupid.

      Caffeine, doesn't mess with your head the same way other drugs do. It just gives you extra energy. That said caffeinated food and drink is a bad idea, you should just stick to the food/drink that has it naturally. Knowing that it is a drug needs to be taken in moderation or not at all.

      Nicotine, there is a lot of work making it harder and harder to get access too.

      But in general these are examples if we leave people choose their drugs with free will they will abuse them.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    56. Re:It's just sad... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Everybody is different. Shit I did coke a couple of times and didn't even like it that much. I mean, I could see why people liked it, I could very much see how people get into trouble with it. In fact, I think that old drug war propaganda "I do coke so I can work longer hours, so I can make more money, so I can buy more coke" was one of the better descriptions of the trap that exists there.

      Pot, I love pot....I know people who don't; and I don't mean the "I never used drugs so I am an expert" folks, shit, I don't even hang out with them. No I mean people who smoked it, some a few times, some for a while, and who decided they didn't like it.

      Some people do MDMA and are depressed for days after, I have done it a couple of times, and I had the opposite, I was absolutely glowing for days after.

      Pretty sure I have done meth too, when I bought some "MDMA" and it didn't have any of its proper effects, but kept me up all night... based on the speedy feeling pretty sure thats what it was.... never had any desire to do it again, was actually pretty annoyed at the whole situation....some people love that shit.

      In short everybody has different body chemistry and different desires. Its not the drug, its the interaction between the drug and individual where the details (and thus the devil) lie.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    57. Re:It's just sad... by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      I assure you that people have unhappy experiences on other hallucinogens as well. Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that LSD was the first. It's really more like one of the last. All the ones I listed have been used by human beings for thousands of years.

      As far as religion is concerned, I think you misunderstand. It's not that much "religion" as in doctrine as it is an established practice that minimizes harm, but established practices designed to minimize the bad effects of the powerful drugs.

      YMMV, but don't assume your experiences are everyones.

      --
      AccountKiller
    58. Re:It's just sad... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Yes but those are incidental. Cop pulls you over and smells pot or otherwise is encountering someone for a reason that has nothing to do with drugs and discovers you have them and charges you with that as well.

      Actual targeted police effort for the purpose of catching people with drugs are generally targeted at people producing and distributing.

    59. Re:It's just sad... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      You just equated individuals making a choice to consume a product you wouldn't choose to consume with murder. I'm sorry but epic fail.

      If you want to take it to the extreme lets at least keep it to something one does to oneself. "We should also legalize suicide because despite it being illegal, there are still suicides occurring. Makes a lot of sense."

  6. And for those that weren't aware by mugetsu37 · · Score: 5, Informative

    He also wrote two books on these experiments, Pihkal and Tihkal, both of which are part fictional autobiography, part detailed instructions on how to synthesize a lot of what he discovered. They're interesting reads, at the least.

    1. Re:And for those that weren't aware by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Before anyone goes "oh no, he tells you how to make drugs": No. Despite containing "recipes" for a lot of psychoactive chemicals, they don't work well as a "hobbyist cookbook to easy highs".

      In a nutshell, if you can follow his "formula", you not only know what you're doing, you also have a rather well stocked lab and access to many things the average person could not even get his hands on by illegal means. So if you CAN follow his lead, you don't really need to, chances are, you did a long, long time ago if you are this good a chemist and interested in psychoactive drugs.

      So what is left is that they are great to read (I especially enjoy his "trip reports"). You may consider the formulae given as a way to preserve these findings, so maybe a more enlightened world may still remember them in the future when we finally overcome our irrational fear of drugs and can actually have a level headed discussion about them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:And for those that weren't aware by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      I read somewhere, years ago, that Shulgin had an "informal understanding" with the authorities: he would keep his "recipes" obscure enough to prevent casual duplication by anyone without a PhD in organic chemistry, and in return "they" would leave him alone to do his work -- and they would also reap the benefits of his research via his copious and detailed lab notes and trip reports.

      I have no idea if this is true, but it sounds nice.

      In any case, well played, Sasha... RIP.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    3. Re:And for those that weren't aware by Yebyen · · Score: 1

      If that's what you heard, well... I heard that it wasn't an informal understanding so much as it was a Real Actual "Schedule 1" license to house and manufacture the most illegal chemicals known to man and laws, and it was revoked (informally or ostensibly because of the publishing of PIHKAL and TIHKAL) after a raid where they destroyed his lab because they managed to get a soil test from around his place that showed slightly elevated levels of mercury. In other words, a snow job.

      --
      Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
    4. Re:And for those that weren't aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds unlikely.

      More probable is that by the time the government got around to illigalizing any particular thing he'd made, he was already moving onto the next one.

      Ex post facto laws being unconstitutional their hands would be tied with regards to anything he did before they got around to restricting the substances, and publishing books is protected under freedom of the press.

  7. Saw the old man 10 years ago by TheCarp · · Score: 2

    A friend of mine called me up and told me he was presenting a talk at MIT so we went. It was amazing to see a nearly 80 year old man bouncing around. He is the same age as my Grandmother, yet he had more energy and was more with it than she was at 60.

    It was a really great talk; I could watch him talk about his "dirty pictures" all day long.

    Very sad day but, it had to come someday.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    1. Re:Saw the old man 10 years ago by leathered · · Score: 2

      It was amazing to see a nearly 80 year old man bouncing around. He is the same age as my Grandmother, yet he had more energy and was more with it than she was at 60.

      I'd love to know his secret.

      --
      For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
    2. Re:Saw the old man 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was he high?

    3. Re:Saw the old man 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I'd love to know his secret.

      Better living through chemistry. Once you use psychedelics and dissociatives to cure yourself of all the harmful behaviours that evolution left in us, you don't overeat anymore, and you make an effort to maintain your body.

    4. Re:Saw the old man 10 years ago by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I'd love to know his secret.

      Ecstasy and other designer drugs he created. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Saw the old man 10 years ago by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      > I'd love to know his secret.

      Honestly, I think its that he kept active and kept working on things that excited and interested him.

      If you understand the basics of what the human mind does, matching patterns and re-wiring itself to respond to them better, if you have seen the research on dementia and alzheimers and the evidence that novel environments that keep the mind active and experiencing new things can mean drastic differences....

      Is it really any surprise that when comparing a person who has mostly spent the last 30 years watching TV isn't in as good a place in terms of energy or mental capacity as someone who kept working, kept experiencing new things, and kept interacting with people?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    6. Re:Saw the old man 10 years ago by Threni · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Saw the old man 10 years ago by ClownPenis · · Score: 2

      He didn't actually discover MDMA. He discovered the psychoactive properties of it.
      He probably looked at its molecular structure and "had a feeling" it would be psychoactive.

  8. It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not quite sure what you mean by "cannot be used by responsible, grown adults". They can't be used legally, no, but they certainly can be used responsibly, and do! One thing I've noticed about soft psychedelic drug culture (which is far removed from hard drug addict culture), is that users are primarily intelligent, contributing members of society. They are utterly under the radar of law enforcement and it's extremely rare for these types to get caught. In general, only the stupid and reckless drug users get caught.

  9. This is not a telephone conversation. by vonWoland · · Score: 1

    I'd post a comment in this thread, but my NSA file is getting heavy enough as it is. How sad that Sasha did not live to see a bit more sanity in this world.

    1. Re:This is not a telephone conversation. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why care about the NSA? You can't even say you are sad that someone died without them getting on your case?

      What is this, the USSA?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:This is not a telephone conversation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >but my NSA file is getting heavy enough as it is.

      It's too bad that you're mentally ill. Maybe some medication would help with that paranoia.

      >How sad that Sasha did not live to see a bit more sanity in this world.

      Are you high? He did live to see the beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition, and absolutely knew that we're getting smarter about drugs and are becoming more free.

    3. Re:This is not a telephone conversation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think the NSA actually cares about you. How cute.

    4. Re:This is not a telephone conversation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >What is this, the USSA?

      No, but many paranoid SlashDerpsters think it is. The groupthink here ranges from exceptionally stupid to completely delusional.
       
      It's been a real eye-opener as to the mental state of the tech community. People with minor technical skills who mistake themselves for smart people seem to go off the deep end just as readily as any far-right-wing nutjob on the wingnut blogs or Twitter wingnut tags like #TCOT or #TGDN.

    5. Re:This is not a telephone conversation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actully more likely the FBI and the DEA since they all share now.

    6. Re:This is not a telephone conversation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the NSA's mission is domestic...drug...oh wait neither of those words show up. Idiot

    7. Re:This is not a telephone conversation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashderpster? Well aren't you just a fucking genius. DIAF.

    8. Re:This is not a telephone conversation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being paranoid when there is ample evidence they're out to get you is only sensible. If you think the NSA cannot even connect the (slash)dots you're being naive.

      Did you know the USSR did not go through everyone's (e-)mail? The USSA does. Its political prisons are better as they're not located in fucking Siberia, but if you think things are not bad you're lying to yourself. You seem to think your savior Obama is different from that devil Bush but they're different faces for the same interests.

      That said, they won't care about you drugging yourself.

    9. Re:This is not a telephone conversation. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Umm... obviously they DO care about you drugging yourself. "War on drugs" rings a bell? For some odd reason that I don't really understand they actually DO care a fair lot whether people put their brains into an orbit.

      I'd really love to know why. One thing I'm fairly certain is that it's not because they actually give half a shit about us being "healthy".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:This is not a telephone conversation. by vonWoland · · Score: 1

      It is not difficult to see how posting in a Sasha Shulgin thread might have repercussions for American citizens. For instance, Mr. Opportunist, since both you and I posted in the same comment thread, even though I have no idea who you are and never will, our names are linked in some NSA database. How this can bite you in the ass (albeit, currently at a low probability level) is already public knowledge: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    11. Re:This is not a telephone conversation. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Go ahead. It is no secret that I consider the legal situation concerning drugs more than just a tad bit questionable. To the point where I dare say that a mature adult should have the unalienable right to do with his body and mind whatever he pleases.

      At the very least I'd like an answer to the question why tobacco and alcohol are legal while other drugs, which are according to various scientific sources less addictive and less damaging to the human mind or body, are not.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Servaas · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    As a former and still (sadly :() marijuana user i can tell you right now that if you are vulnerable to it drugs, any drug can cause you serious mental harm. I have suffered a psychoses episode just by smoking pot 1.5 year ago. Do note however I was seriously "down" at the time. Constant headaches, constant thinking about my problems really fucked me up. Worst 4 weeks of my life thus far. I literally trusted noone (not even my parents who in my psychoses state were holding me back from fully embracing the world order Illuminati!, yes I actually believed in it, I could write a book about how I viewed the world...) and I was a danger to myself.

    I still sadly smoke it but I'm hoping to go clean in the next week or so. Thankfully I'm in a much better place right now so hopefully no more mental stuff.

    Sadly the lure of the high still gets me. I listen to the Johnny Cash song "A Junkie's Prayer" a lot.

    1. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I literally trusted noone (not even my parents who in my psychoses state were holding me back from fully embracing the world order Illuminati!, yes I actually believed in it, I could write a book about how I viewed the world...) and I was a danger to myself.

      Sounds more like you have schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or something else going on.

      Weed does NOT cause psychosis like you describe.

      I suggest you find out what is your actual underlying cause. Because, it aint the weed.

    2. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's possible to get that kind of shit from weed though if you have certain mental disorders. Note that you would get sick either way, but probably one to a few years later.

    3. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by sosume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Shulgin's work had nothing to do with weed, addictive drugs or getting a body high.
      He invented and classified an entire new spectrum of chemicals closely related to the brain's chemicals such as serotonine. He tried to synthesize every possible combination, moving the amino groups around, substituting existing compounds with allyl or methoxy groups, and experimented with all these chemicals on himself with precise procedures to ensure his safety. These chemicals have proven to be extremely powerful consciousness-altering drugs, active at just a few milligrams, producing profound mind-bending effects and providing an unparalleled insight in the inner workings of the mind and its chemical balance.
      He has provided the public with detailed descriptions of these chemicals, both synthesis and their subjective effects. He never profited financially and risked his life and freedom many times just to chase this knowledge. (And have great sex, as he states in his books). Alexander Shulgin was a genius, and the way society is developing there will probably never be a man like him again.

    4. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's clear that you have serious mental problems, unrelated to any drug. There is no lure to get high on pot, beyond the lure to have any sort of fun, and it has nothing to do with being a junkie. Please see a psychiatrist about your underlying condition.

    5. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't speak out of your ass.

      While the evidence is not cut-and-dry, smoking marijuana does seem to be a trigger for psychosis in some people (Check out wikipedia for a starting point of possible references). However, it has been argued that the people at risk actually have a genetic predisposition to psychosis and marijuana might just be a trigger to something that could have been triggered by any number of other things.

      I suffered the same conditions as the OP described and I was in a similar phase (way down) when this happened. The psychologist at the hospital where I was (twice), and the psychiatrist later kept underlining this fact. They made it abundantly clear that while they cannot say with certainty that marijuana was what was causing the bursts (since I did have other things going), it does attract suspicion considering my specific case history (and the studies that point to possible psychoses in _some people_).

      Since the first episode, I have had about three/four episodes and the one common factor was marijuana consumption prior to the episode. In the beginning I could smoke lightly for sometime, get confident that things are fine, smoke as a normal user, and end up feeling psychotic for a month. Gradually smaller and smaller doses brought out the demons. Perhaps because of having stopped the anti-psychotic pills (after consultation with the psychiatrist) and having resumed normal life, I had lower threshold...

      Anyway, the last time, I had four puffs and ended up feeling mildly psychotic for a week. This was after a very long stable break and with everything perfectly fine in my life. So as much as I hated this, I decided not to smoke again.

      Feel free to go on and enjoy your smoke but please don't say that you don't need to keep an eye out for possible danger. Weed _can_ be dangerous. Even if it is generally a safe drug, it helps no one spouting nonsense like "it does NOT cause psychosis." Good luck servaas.

    6. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a "noone"?

    7. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      But it didn't cause your psychosis. It exacerbated it. You had me until your 2nd to last sentence. ;)

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    8. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably dusted

    9. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, you have no physical addiction to deal with. But if you do backslide, don't smoke one of the super powerful varieties. Find a more mellow one where the anti-psychotic cannabinoids are proportionally stronger.

    10. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noticing mental illness in others is not a sign of psychosis.

      I had you until I noticed that the tech community has gone nuts? Why is that? Is the truth too much to deal with?

      Any problem you perceive with my very honest post is clearly on your end. Maybe you're part of the crazed groupthink.

    11. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, it has been argued that the people at risk actually have a genetic predisposition to psychosis and marijuana might just be a trigger to something that could have been triggered by any number of other things.

      That was the point ... you likely would have had the psychosis eventually anyway at some point in your life, with or without the weed.

      Weed did not cause your psychosis. It might have triggered your underlying predisposition to it. But it didn't cause it.

      Feel free to go on and enjoy your smoke but please don't say that you don't need to keep an eye out for possible danger.

      Nobody is saying that. What is being said is that you would have had this happen to you anyway, and while it might have exacerbated it, the cause was another underlying condition.

      But, among people who don't have underlying issues which meant they would eventually experience psychosis anyway, there is zero evidence that weed will cause it to happen. (Sadly, there is zero real evidence because the governments refuse to actually study it instead of decreeing it to be a narcotic, which it isn't.)

      It sucks that this is how you discovered this condition. But the reality is, you would likely have experienced it (and likely will again) with or without weed.

      Much like running up a flight of stairs won't cause you to have a heart condition, it sure as hell might be how you find out about it.

      Trust me, I have a family member with schizophrenia, have known numerous people with various neuro-chemical imbalances and/or issues with psychosis -- I know more about this than you might think.

      For people like that, mind-altering drugs can trigger absolutely terrible things. It's not, however, the cause, just what sets it off. But sooner or later, something else would almost certainly have set it off.

    12. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is being argued that it _might be_ the case that marijuana triggers psychosis that was bound to happen. The evidence is not clear that such psychoses would have been triggered anyway. That is _one_ hypothesis (a valid one until more research clarifies things, but not a conclusion we can clearly derive yet).

      I mentioned it to be clear that I am not saying that marijuana causes psychosis (or even can do so in some people). My point was rather that saying it is _not_ the case with tone of knowledgeable authority is neither honest not entirely helpful.

    13. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it didn't cause your psychosis. It exacerbated it

      We don't know that for sure. The research is inconclusive so far. I think it is harmful to state it as matter of fact when even professionals doing research in the area are not sure. Also, it can and does induce psychosis for some people (as opposed to making it worse). The disagreement is whether or not these people will suffer from mental illness eventually anyway.

      You had me until your 2nd to last sentence. ;)

      I am not sure I understand. Are you objecting to me saying,

      Even if it is generally a safe drug, it helps no one spouting nonsense like "it does NOT cause psychosis."

      ?

      To clarify, I wasn't saying that weed does cause psychosis. My point was two folds. Firstly, research is not conclusive yet that anyone who suffers weed-induced psychosis was bound to have a psychotic episode sooner or later. It is not settled that it _does not_ cause psychosis (albeit, it is pretty clear that even if it did cause mental problems, it does for a small subset of users).

      Secondly, you _do_ need to be careful. Weed-induced high has all the features of a psychotic state. Just that it is for most people benign and temporary. Saying "it doesn't happen" is only likely to make someone careless if the high doesn't subside as quickly as it should. In an ideal world, a casual weed user who has been high for much longer than the usual time will go see a doctor and/or consider abstaining (for he might in the risky-crowd). This likely will not happen if the user thinks that weed may not induce a non-existing psychosis but just exacerbate it.

      PS: I have no idea what the other AC is on about in response to your post. S/he seems to be implying that s/he made the post you replied to. S/he didn't.

    14. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      No doubt that Shulgin was a definite genius, and made significant contributions to his field. The biggest issue with him among many professionals in the biomedical sciences is his rather unorthodox methods. He often tested compounds on himself, which is a major safety issue and generally frowned upon among professionals. If he followed common laboratory protocols and human subjects guidelines, he would be more accepted among his peers.

    15. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lead singer of Herman's Hermits.

    16. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Xolvix · · Score: 1

      Alexander Shulgin was a genius, and the way society is developing there will probably never be a man like him again.

      Can you be more specific about that last bit? I know cynacism runs deep within the Slashdot community (a lot of it justified) but it's not as if we won't have geniuses in the future able to make contributions to the world. Maybe the US will have some problems but not everyone is bound to America's way of doing things (or being prevented from doing).

    17. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would we have the vast amount of data we do now if he had? From my limited reading of his books it seemed that many of the accounts were a one time only thing. Yes of course were favourites that had pages of entries for them, but quite a few were quite limited in the amount of recorded data.

    18. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right because testing the drugs on niggers and other undesirables is much more preferred. /sarcasm

    19. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Testing psychoactive compounds on yourself is the most ethical course of action, as he and many other biochemists such as Albert Hoffmann have stated. How can you in good conscious give someone a psychedelic compound without personally knowing the effect it has?

      "common laboratory protocols and human subjects guidelines" are unethical and immoral if they don't include the experimenter taking the compound before any other human subjects.

      I know several biochemists. They all use psychedelics, many of them have told me that it was psychedelics that inspired their initial interest in biochemistry. While they might not put it in writing when they publish their research, I can tell you from personal association that they informally test new psychedelic compounds on themselves and their peers before formal research following "human subjects guidelines".

      Do not be under the misapprehension that researchers (appear to) follow rules mandated upon them by government regulators because they agree with those rules and hold them to be ethical. It is simply the demonised times we live in that researchers are forced to project a certain appearance to retain their positions. If you speak your mind as people like Timothy Leary and Alexander Shulgin have done the establishment attacks, defames and in some cases imprisons you, so it's easy to see why people just keep their heads down and don't speak out about the injustices brought upon them.

      You will find if you are taking an psilocybin or LSD trip with them they have a very different perspective to the one they project publicly to protect their reputation and career.

    20. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      That just means that we have too many regulations due to too lax liability suits.

      Current drug research precludes development of drugs that have "getting high" as a predominant effect, because the medical establishment considers any such effects "side effects" even if it was the intended effect!

      One cannot develop an antidepressant drug, if it actually makes someone feel good!

      Basically we are still in the midst of an inquisition against pleasure, thanks to you know who, dating back to the Opium Wars.

    21. Re:Drugs can be bad mmkay! by sosume · · Score: 1

      I don't expect that you will be allowed to have such a laboratory in your house anymore.

  11. i hope they do closed casket by Cardoor · · Score: 1

    can you imagine all the touchy-feeling-corpsey groping otherwise? dude...

  12. Bad headline, give Shulgin the credit he is due by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This headline is terrible - Shulgin was WAY more than just some "godfather of ecstasy." He was a true scientist, pioneer, and explorer - a brilliant chemist and great writer. Everyone should at least read his book, PIHKaL. You'll get great insight into why he explored psychoactive chemicals, how he synthesized them, and (imo, most interestingly) how he went about exploring their effects.

  13. Not just the Godfather of Ecstasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He was much more than just the Godfather of Ecstasy. A brilliant chemist who wanted to unlock the secrets of the brain and the inner workings of the mind and soul. He was bigger than just one drug, his work was far more important than just the Rave culture. He won't be understood in his own time and his contributions will not be fully understood for hundreds of years. Once humanity has decided that chemical and substance research can be of great use to mankind, his contributions will finally be recognized.

    Rest in Peace, Sasha.

  14. It's just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, because all those kids partying with it are so psychologically stable.

  15. RIP Sasha by shaitand · · Score: 1

    Your brilliant mind and revolutionary work will be missed. And no doubt the world will be a little dimmer without your bright spirit glowing among us.

  16. Document his wife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    documenting the results, along with his wife, in his books and papers.

    And what did he document about his wife?

  17. But LSD must be better by rduke15 · · Score: 2

    Because it's inventor died 14 years older at 102. :-)

    And seriously, the one time I tried ecstasy, I didn't like that it seemed to interfere with my emotions.

    LSD modifies percepetions and paths of thought, which can be a fantastic experience (or just great fun) if you are in the right mood for it, but I don't remember it ever modifying my emotions.

    Ecstasy gave me the impression of creating out of proportion artificial emotions in me. After the fact, I really didn't like that aspect. No wonder it was all the rage during the years of techno music. I guess people dancing to that cold techno music really needed something to still feel human.

    But anyway, peace to "Godfather of Ecstasy" and all chemists experimenting with psychoactive drugs. When used right, these all give valuable experiences.

    1. Re:But LSD must be better by oneiron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I realize it was tongue in cheek, but you really shouldn't reduce Shulgin down to "the inventor of ecstasy" and draw cute comparisons with other famous chemists. Shugin "invented" countless other phenethylamines and tryptamines, and he documented the synthesis and experience reports thoroughly in a few different volumes that you can find on amazon.com. He was also a pioneering inventor of a massively popular pesticide which preceded other pesticides that are foundational components of modern agriculture.

    2. Re:But LSD must be better by Bramlet+Abercrombie · · Score: 1

      Try both at the same time aka candyflipping , if you don't have a bad trip it will be the best ever.

    3. Re:But LSD must be better by F34nor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      PIHKAL & TIHKAL

      LSD is like a filthy hammer bashing your brain out sure you see stars but the next day is rough. Shulgin went to the point of creating psychoactives tailored to visual or auditory only. LSD was discovered by mistake, and opened up a new world of pharmacology. Shulgin understood the systems and created purposefully, there is a HUGE difference.

    4. Re:But LSD must be better by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Stiffy flipping Viagra and MDMA.

    5. Re:But LSD must be better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, if you had one bad trip on some DOB, don't speak about pure LSD. Only thing "rough" after pure 25 is maybe some unwanted social activity. If you've had enough sleep, you would feel just fine. And "filthy hammer"? You really did something wrong there...

    6. Re:But LSD must be better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's clear you've never taken LSD or you wouldn't say that.

      In fact, it sounds like you've never taken any psychedelics.

    7. Re:But LSD must be better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was also a pioneering inventor of a massively popular pesticide which preceded other pesticides that are foundational components of modern agriculture.

      Yes. With this pesticide, the pests died in ecstasy!

    8. Re:But LSD must be better by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Ahh the voice of ignorance. I once hosted an Earth Dance where the promoter gave every one who came a hit or two of CP liquid LSD. I know what the differnce between good and bad is. The basis of a good trip classically requires set and setting, purity aside. All things that I am competent at controlling. What I am saying is that LSD was a mistake with a side effect, Shulgin created hundreds of substances tested them evaluated them and recommended them. Why use a stone hammer to do prostrate surgery when you have gamma ray knife? Look at the chemical structure of LSD vs DMT which one is more likely to be broken down cleanly in the synaptic gap when it the brain is done with it?

    9. Re:But LSD must be better by oneiron · · Score: 1

      Don't forget... The Shulgin Index Vol 1: Psychedelic Phenethylamines and Related Compounds

      I hope that someone is continuing to work on Volume 2...

  18. MDMA: Empathy by digsbo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Too bad fear rules all. MDMA was highly effective in couples therapy, leading to years of progress in hours.

    1. Re:MDMA: Empathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that was why it was banned. They can't be promoting empathy, think of what it would do to the Military Industrial Complex, and unethical corporations. They could have their decision making affected and prioritize people over short-term profits! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

    2. Re:MDMA: Empathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MDMA is highly effective in treatment of PTSD as well. Not counting the medical effects, I don't know anyone who has used it responsibly and didn't enjoy it.

    3. Re:MDMA: Empathy by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      Too bad fear rules all. MDMA was highly effective in couples therapy, leading to years of progress in hours.

      Until two days later when they went back to hating each other again but twice as bad. MDMA can give you some short term breakthroughs in communication, but the side effects are counter productive. The experiments were far from "highly effective." Now if we can just get a drug that ratchets up serotonin production without the re-uptake "hacks" like Prozac or short term "dumps" like MDMA we would have something.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    4. Re:MDMA: Empathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The side effect you talk of is simply a resistance to the natural serotonin in your brain, due to an over abundance of it when taking advanced doses. The serotonin resistance & associated depression disappear after a couple of hours/days, once natural levels are restored.
      This isn't experienced with the low doses used in therapy however. Therapeutic doses are a fraction of those used by recreational users.

    5. Re:MDMA: Empathy by Prune · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with MDMA is toxicity. It's highly excitotoxic, among other things: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... It's ability to cause depencency has not been as well studied, but stimulants in general are addictive (including legal prescription ones like Adderall and Ritalin). The fleeting nature of any benefit, as http://science.slashdot.org/co... notes, makes this not worth it given permanent nature of the neurotoxic effects. If you've got to do something, stick with psychedelics--generally non-addictive, low toxicity, and bad reactions are rare and generally limited in scope (unless, you know, you jump out of a window or something).

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  19. Re:Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope you die in a fire you ignorant fuck.

  20. Re:Good riddance by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Get back under your bridge.

    Baaaaah...

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  21. Re:Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's always good to hear about another drug evangelist dropping dead. It's a shame Shulgin didn't kick the bucket earlier.

    Your desire to see another man dead because you disagree with his research is not very compassionate. May you one day learn to show compassion towards everyone, especially those that wish to better understand our world. The more knowledgeable we are about the world, the better we can address problems such as drug abuse.

  22. Re:Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah, using L33t sp33k really makes your comments that much better! How bout you burn in hell?

  23. You're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it isn't a Fine American Corporate One-Button Solution to your problems. It just helps you find your own solutions.

    If one is taking it therapeutically, neurotoxicity and tolerance shouldn't pose any real threat. If someone's taking it often enough that tolerance is a concern (daily for 7 days to no effect, IIRC) someone should be using that time to look at their life.

    Excuse me, it's bong o'clock...

  24. He documented his wife? by Cerpicio · · Score: 1

    "Shulgin was known for discovering, creating and personally testing hundreds of psychoactive chemicals and documenting the results, along with his wife, in his books and papers." He documented the results AND he documented his wife? -- C.