Hacker News Reader

Comment by jijijijij | Hacker News Reader

Calling it the "pharmaceutical form" is borderline misinformation, considering it's just a common salt of LSD. You can get that outside the pharmacy. It's not like actual LSD is ever made in some dirty improv meth lab. Likewise, nobody expects researchers to buy their drugs on the streets. It's just LSD. This "say no to drugs" drug did the trick.

View on HN

Call me a luddite, but I'd personally honestly preferring knowing my chemist so that I can be relatively certain there's no 2-ci or whatever bs the kids are cutting with or straight up substituting these days.

My understanding is that, today in the US (and other markets so far as I know), it is far easier to know a pharmacist than a genuine LSD chemist, though I am several years out of that particular market.

Would be nice to know there's been a resurgence of access to ergot via improvement in Claviceps growth or some nifty novel synthesis we didn't have a few years ago.

While I agree that I'd love to have a guarantee on purity, the way to do that is just to make LSD legal, rather than have some private equity backed pharma company tie up the supply. LSD should be a case like insulin or the polio vaccine, as it offers an immense amount of potential for the planet.

Sure, if they want to make money by offering retreats in clinical settings for people too afraid to spend an afternoon with a loved one on 100ug of LSD, by all means. But jumping through hoops to lock up the supply of a truly revolutionary molecule that could improve the lives of millions just feels bad to me.

Edit: Also, no one is putting 2c-i on a tab of LSD. The doses are way different (~100ug vs 15mg) and chemists that make LSD tend to be pretty sold on it's potential to help humanity and try to keep the supply as pure as possible.

You may be thinking of "tusi" or pink cocaine, which is a drug mixture that tends to have ketamine and mdma mixed, and often has had fentanyl creep into the supply. Someone just decided to name it similar to Shulgin's 2C class of drugs for some reason, which is annoying and dangerous.

Except just legalization is no guarantee of safety or purity. Look at the Vitamin Industry as an example. The general public thinks that manufacturers of those bottles in the vitamin aisle are required to follow the same standards set by the FDA as those in OTC pain relief in the next aisle over.

well yes, of course. I'd assume any mind altering substance should have purity standards if legal and not treated like buying herbal supplements. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Yeah, of course that's all legit concerns and demands. However, I dislike the notion this "dangerous street drug" was graciously made to somethings "useful" and safe by the pharma industry. It's the same its always been. Especially around the time of its prohibition.

I am calling out a pattern. It's a bit similar to pharma going into the jungle, taking some natural compound (possibly known to an indigenous tribe), modifying the chemistry just enough to patent it and call it a miracle. The dealer gets life in prison, the Sackler family literally killed thousands, but merely had to pay a fine and do some rebranding.

If LSD wasn't arbitrarily outlawed, your concerns wouldn't exist. ID and purity considerations are purely consequences of being made illegal. It was always synthesized by highly educated and responsible chemists, because the chemistry demands it. It was never an honest public health concern, it's not addictive, practically lacking any toxicity.

MDMA also got this treatment. Immersion with the collectivist teachings of Christ was decided a sinful desire, but now treating the PR problem of broken cogs in the war machine may be ruled acceptable in the eyes of God.

Sandoz was the first to manufacture LSD under the product name Delysid.

Fair enough. But I think you know what I mean.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com