MDMA is growing more and more popular as we speak, quickly replacing cocaine's position as the most popular party drug in my experience.
His biggest contributions are probably yet to be seen tbh, an entire generation is growing up alongside them
His biggest contributions are probably yet to be seen tbh, an entire generation is growing up alongside them
It's also worth mentioning that MDMA is manufactured from Sassafras oil which comes from an endangered species of trees. There's a risk of the Sassafras trees becoming extinct because of MDMA manufacture in clandestine chemical plants in the jungles of south east Asia.
The study determining carcinogenicity, which would ban the substance automatically due to a 1960 FDA rule, occurred in 1977. The substance itself was not found to be carcinogenic, but two metabolites--found in rodents but not humans--were.
Shulgin began research on MDMA in 1976.
Foil hat is the best psychoactive drug.
1976 --> 1 + 9 + 7 + 6 = 23
5 characters.
77+68+77+65+0 = 287 = 7*41. 7 and 41 are the 4th and 13th primes. 13-4 = 9. The 9th prime? 23.
Although some sassafras oil for clandestine production of chemicals may come from such unsustainable farming, most probably comes from diversion.
Anyways, if sustainability of the source tree is the biggest issue, I'm sure most consumers would have no issues with a $1/dose sassafras tree sustainability fund contribution.
(What, we can't turn the propaganda around?)
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shulgin/adsarchive/safrole.h...
If you're waiting around for the DEA to decide to write you a permission slip then you may end up waiting for the rest of your life. The government probably views this drug as the most dangerous one in existence and I'll try to explain why:
MDMA seems to have the power to help people heal psychological wounds and come together despite their differences, but that's a nightmare for a government who rather have populations remain afraid of one another, fighting with one another, and relying on the government to solve their problems. The government sees it's role as manifesting order out of chaos, and if people are not psychologically conflicted and fighting with one another then a day might come when they begin to feel that they can work together to solve problems on their own without the need for nearly as much government supervision.
Also, the monitored usage thing is more about finding someone capable of guiding me to talking about various traumas and stuff that trigger me in my day-to-day life. I've had bad experiences in the past of being the person to guide someone when trying to deal with their own demons, and have triggered my own in the process. I want someone I can trust, but is a relative neutral third party, who I can trust to guide me and help start to heal some deep-seated wounds. This is hard given the current framework, and something I do deeply want to help with my own healing process.
http://www.raveready.com/MDMA-Ecstasy-Testing-Kit-p/dansacc....
(I'm not vouching for the above kit in particular, do your own research in this area)
If you feel like you need a third party to be there with you then maybe you do, each person is different. I will say that MDMA isn't like a psychedelic where you definitely want to have a "trip sitter" present, it's a much more controllable experience.
In my opinion MDMA may feel mystical, magical or sublime; but it doesn't feel weird. MDMA "provides a centering experience, rather than an ego diffusing experience" (Dr. Philip Wolfson).
If you decide to go ahead without one then let me advise you to try it outdoors in private setting, perhaps near a lake, or a mountain top, somewhere with a view where you can roam about enjoy yourself. If you have a significant other then I highly recommend taking it together. This drug is perfect for couples therapy.
If you think you might need someone with you, you should probably have someone with you. These things can become self-fulfilling. Taking powerful drugs when in a state of (acute) apprehension or anxiety is not a good idea.
Obviously it might well be fine, by all accounts the stuff does tend to make you feel good, but doing any unusual activity for the first time on your own is very different to doing it with someone who's done it before.
There are plenty of "I really wish this was over" drugs, and MDMA simply isn't one of them.
Even anxiolytics can cause anxiety/panic attacks if they have a paradoxical reaction.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/29/5664700/ecstatic-states-md...
With significant brainwashing, many people today fear these drugs as directly dangerous, not as a mind opening tool.
Try asking people if they think LSD should be legal -- I bet a majority will say no.
I myself think that all drugs should be legal.
I think that perhaps it alone should be restricted in the same way that access to plutonium is restricted, with the aside that individuals who would like enough for their own personal use should of course be granted (free) access.
You see the problem with that particular problem child is that enough LSD to dose every man woman and child on earth could be produced in a single lab and held within a coffee cup which makes it uniquely dangerous as a weapon of mass oppression if it were to fall into the wrong hands. Also the fact that you can't easily test a substance for LSD increases the liklihood of individuals being exposed who did not wish to be exposed.
Therefor the risks that it will be used as a kind of weapon against unsuspecting populations is too great relative to other drugs. I'd also like to point out that LSD doesn't seem to universally help people in the way that responsible amounts of MDMA (and arguably cannabis) does.
I don't think there is a justification for the restriction of other psychedelics that don't have these risks of weaponization such as various mushrooms, cactai, certain vines, etc.
Some of the psychedelic amphetamines fall into this category too. Many have doses in the sub-1mg range. Some exotics (Bromo-dragonfly) are not only effective in the same dose range as LSD, but last several times as long and are far more toxic. The LD50 of LSD is quite forgiving as I understand it, with BDF it is not and people have died.
There are other substances that border on poison - carfentanil is an opiate used to stun elephants and is active in humans at the 1ug range.
I also dislike the catch-all term 'drugs', but LSD is not entirely unique in its potency.
How the hell would you use LSD in that way "for oppression" or "as a weapon"? The main effect seems to be to cause uncontrollable giddiness and happiness.
The British Military actually tried to use LSD as a weapon. This was the result when they tested it against soldiers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX7m4fqTLKU
Needless to say, the "weapon" potential was quickly dismissed.
Edit: Here's a US equivalent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUQNqIIGN88
In short, LSD causes people to disregard authority, act chaotically and unpredictably, lose their ability to follow orders.
It's also highly volatile so likely to backfire on the people administering it, causing them to get high too.
From more direct experience, I can also say that LSD causes you to re-examine fundamental beliefs in quite an intense way. Not at all what you want to use on a population you want to control. In fact, if you were a dictator trying to retain control of an oppressed population, you should probably do everything in your power to avoid mass use of LSD in that population.
Also your personal experiences only apply to normal doses of LSD you have no idea what it can do to someone at extreme doses, nor are you referencing experiments where such doses were tested.
again, I'm not aruging in favor of restricting individuals from access to personal doses, I think that would be a good thing. I just don't want to live in a world where any psychopath can get his hands of billions of doses. This is not something you have to worry about with most other drugs because with most other drugs you can't produce that many doses all at once and transport it easily. I just wanted to point out that this unusual property exists with respect to LSD and it complicates matters.
I'll link you to a Time magazine article in which the author has begun to stick his toe in the water but you'll have to guide your own research from there: http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/23/the-legacy-of-the-cias...
In certain parts of South America, a chemical derived from Datura is regularly used to zombify people, when they come to their senses 48 hours later, they've a hole in their memories and no possessions left. Again, nefarious people will always find a way to use the tools nature gave us for nefarious purposes.
Anyways I highly disagree with your assertion that discussing any of this, to any level of depth, would be considered disrespectful in any way by or to Shulgin. A man who dedicated his entire life to the exploration of pharmacology in all forms, such discussion is precisely the sort of thing I believe he aimed to encourage.
Isn't the cat out of the bag already?
Enforcement of purity, taxation on sale, restrictions on advertising and access to children sounds ok.
David Nutt published his rankings here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...
Alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine topped the list, in that order.
Ecstasy was near the bottom of the list.