HW: Various

John Majka jmajk at INDY.RR.COM
Fri Jul 2 22:45:44 EDT 2004

It's true that LSD is not easy to make as an amateur, which is why other
substances are passed off as LSD.  When I hear lots of people describing
their  "acid experiences," it sounds more like their "strychnine

John Majka--pharmacist who studied a lot of medicinal chemistry

> Especially the shit that is passed off as LSD these days.  Which - btw -
> there really is very little real LSD anymore.  The cost of setting up a
> that is as sterile and hygienic as is required (and keeping it secret)
> forces most people to just make garbage from all sorts of poisons.  Not
> REAL DEAL.  Give it a miss.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "M Holmes" <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK>
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 10:11 PM
> Subject: Re: HW: Various
> > HawkFan writes:
> >
> > > I know people who took LSD regularly and seem to have survived with
> > > relatively untwisted personalities. I suspect Syd Barrett was always a
> bit
> > > strange. Maybe the LSD pushed him off the edge and maybe he would have
> > > fallen off anyway.
> >
> > Sure.  As I said, about 3% of the population can be regarded as
> > pre-schizophrenic and LSD is one of the things that can tip those people
> > over the edge.  While personal and family history, and to an extent
> > psychological testing, can give a little insight into whether one is in
> > the 3% or the 97%, it's not an edge anyone would actually want to fall
> > over.  A lifetime on antipsychotic drugs, or sliding down the social
> > sxale due to mental illness, is a huge price to pay for a little mental
> > recreation.  OTOH, if I broke my neck skiing, pretty much the same would
> > apply.
> >
> > What's been interesting recently is that there's been a moral panic due
> > some research claims that regular use of strong cannabis can induce
> > similar effects. It's appeared in the press as "Cannabis Psychosis"
> > stories involving "super skunk" and "marijuana ten times as strong as
> > their parents used in the 60's". It doesn't seem to be hard to find
> > doctors who'll say that the incidence of admission for this reason is
> > and it wouldn't be exactly easy to compare the strength of cannabis now
> > to 40 years ago. I expect there'll be a few more moral panics on this
> > until the research jury comes in.
> >
> > Then again, it turned out that the "Ecstasy swiss-cheeses your brain"
> > researchers had been unknowingly testing speed all along. We'll probably
> > just have to wait a decade to see whether the 20 year olds using ecstasy
> > in the 90's turn out to be miserable 40 year olds.
> >
> > To be fair to researchers though, the 50 year study into doctors and
> > smoking is one hell of a piece of work. I doubt even FOREST could argue
> > with a straight face that it's not bad for you, and passive smoking
> > looks to be worse than previously thought too. I'm geting optimistic
> > that a public ban on smoking is close to arrival in Scotland. It'd be
> > good to get my favourite drug without breathing other people's poisons.
> >
> > FoFP
> >

More information about the boc-l mailing list