Comments on: Get Along Kid Charlemagne

By: msg

msg — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 06:55:52 +0000

Climate change, or global fever, is imminent. And directly attributable to petroleum combustion. The leading cause of death for people under 30 is traffic fatalities. The amount of non-fatal carnage on the highway is staggering. The oil/auto cartel commits thuggery to preserve itself and its markets on a scale that makes the cocaine industry look like a bunch of teenagers at a car wash. Yet recreational drug use is a societal evil. Why? Why is it acceptable to carve children up with steel and broken glass, yet the thought of them stoned and laughing is terrifying to most “decent” people? – No argument applied to illegal drug use couldn’t be applied just as accurately to the use of gasoline. The illusion of power, the false sense of necessity, the dependence, the denial, the damage. Our prisons are filled with criminals whose “victims” aren’t suffering, while the richest gated communities are teeming with businessmen whose “customers” have a death rate every year that’s greater than all the drug-caused deaths of the 20th century. What’s up with that?

By: TomK

TomK — Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:52:49 +0000

“And I have read some of the literature, and without much offense intended, drugs or non-drugs, white-light stuff, leaving one’s body, seeing Granddogbody on his throne surrounded by the Seraphim….and whatever Shirley MacLaine has really truly experienced this week….as may be apparent, I am skeptical by nature.” I suggest that your skepticism is misplaced. Here you will find a lecture on religious experience and drug use. The abstract from the lecture: “ABSTRACT: We are going through a major reorganization in Western religions now,similar to the one that occurred around 1500. Before then for the ordinary person (not monks or priests) taking part in religion primarily meant going to mass on Sunday, attending church festivals, praying, and other religious behaviors. With the advent of the printing press and movable type, printing the Bible democratized a new kind of religious activity for the common person – – reading text and interpreting it. This eventually changed the whole nature of Western society and education; it became important that everyone should read in order to read “the holy word.” Then, new interpretations resulted, and new churches flourished. Today the current transistion adds another layer of religious activity. Entheogens make it possible for the ordinary person to experience primary religious experience (mystical experience). Just as the printed Bible democratized access to religous text, entheogens democratize access to primary religious experience. What new interpretations are occuring, and what new churches may spring forth? What changes may result?” Even if you have not had such experiences, it does not mean that others do not have them or are not entitled to seek them out. It’s possible for reasonable people to decide to use drugs for these experiences. That you have never had them is no reason to believe they do not exist. It’s obvious that the mind is capable of having some sort of profound religious experience, and drugs help many people enter those states, even if they do not help you. Your skepticism is ill-founded. Surely not everyone who has reported these experiences while tripping are making them up.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:50:43 +0000

I’m kinda amused at all the interspersed solemn warnings that Drug Use Is Bad. As if: a) folks here who have done it in the past don’t have their own experience to draw upon. b) this is revelatory, never-before-heard advice. c) without such cautions, thousands of CT reeaders would be rushing out to get acid, hearing that it’s been endorsed by such wise, um, heads. d) I’d also be surprised to find that the majority of people’s experience isn’t more than twenty-five years in the past. Mine was mid-Seventies. But now that I’m warned, I know not to do it again! e) I’m reminded of the acquaintance in a written precursor to online exchanges, an amateur press association, who, at the age 15, in 1974, solemnly explained that drugs are bad, so one should push really hard on your closed eyeballs with your fingers, and it will work just as well.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:42:55 +0000

“…and not spend 13 out of 14 hours wishing you hadn’t taken that goddamn hit of acid.” My memory says more like 16 out of the next 22 hours. But my memory is fucked up from all the acid. (That was a joke, m’kay?)

By: mccoll

mccoll — Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:46:34 +0000

Sounds like if your brain’s big enough, you have a lot more fun—thank god for a big, fat brain!

By: jdsm

jdsm — Sun, 04 Apr 2004 09:51:43 +0000

Listening to people talk knowledgeably and sincerely about recreational drug use is like reading intellectual analyses of hip-hop. If your brain’s big enough you read a lot into even the most banal of things. That doesn’t mean it’s there. Drug use, like hip-hop, is too often dull and destructive.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sun, 04 Apr 2004 04:24:09 +0000

“that LSD experiences range very, very far beyond the kind of sensory level provoked anxiety you experienced” Well. Certainly have had a wide range of experiences, many outside of drugs, many very intense and even ecstatic, but none of them “spiritual”. This may be a matter of interpretation, or some kind of personal inhibition. And I have read some of the literature, and without much offense intended, drugs or non-drugs, white-light stuff, leaving one’s body, seeing Granddogbody on his throne surrounded by the Seraphim….and whatever Shirley MacLaine has really truly experienced this week….as may be apparent, I am skeptical by nature.

By: tripper

tripper — Sun, 04 Apr 2004 03:45:33 +0000

bob mcmanus: if you study the literature, (e.g. Stanislav Grof, or Masters and Houston) you’ll find that LSD experiences range very, very far beyond the kind of sensory level provoked anxiety you experienced, and can even be life-changing. Or not, for the vast majority of casual users. Or extremely frightening, for others. It’s a very serious and potentially useful drug in a controlled setting, but I agree that it’s not going to be much more than a good freak-out for most young people. Research

By: andrew

andrew — Sun, 04 Apr 2004 00:20:26 +0000

hubb rubb’s comment is quite apt, I think. People take drugs which have a predictable effect far more easily than they do a drug which may, in enough dose, cause you to rethink your entire life. LSD is always described as ‘walls melt’, which is really to deny it’s primary effect, which is the fucking ordeal of the many hours you may spend dwelling on the intimate actions and behaviors of your life. Many hours of introspective hell? Are you kidding? That said, LSD was a quite profitable drug while I was in college. A sheet (100 hits) for $100, resale at $5/hit? Who needs a job? (I didn’t)

By: andrew

andrew — Sun, 04 Apr 2004 00:20:12 +0000

By: Bubb Rubb

Bubb Rubb — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:31:09 +0000

In my experience, there is really one reason why LSD is less popular, there is no guarantee. People who take drugs want a guarantee that they drug they are taking is going to produce the desired effect. The problem with LSD was two-fold, first the quality control issue. You did not know what you are getting because you could not use any of your senses to investigate the material that was on the blotter. Frequently users were getting bad or bum hits. The bad hit is the one where there may be little LSD on the blotter, or the blotter may be old, so the blotter is contaminated with another compound, usually an amphetamine. The bum hit, is the one that is a pure fake, with nothing in it but your own imagination. Second, there is the effect issue. If you were to take a dose of the drug, there was no guarantee that you would have a positive effect. Many users have extremely negative reactions “bad trips”, even if they get a pure dose. For teens, the “bad trip” in many instances takes on urban legend proportions, scaring many away from the drug, while others were scared away from first hand experience. Psilocybin mushrooms (for some reason) and MDMA both have qualities that mitigate against one of the above. One can develop a knowledge of mushrooms so that one knows what one is taking to ensure that they are taking the correct drug. The “bum trip” issue still exists, however that can be mitigated against by controlling dosage throughout the experience and because the effects are temporally shorter. MDMA appears to be 99% effective at producing positive results for users, however the quality issue is significant and many users are willing to take the risk of taking the drug unverified because if it is the right thing, it will always produce a positive result.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:29:02 +0000

It’s a difficult full synthesis. My pharm books—thoroughly legit, I’m so boring—suggest that most illegal production of LSD uses either legitimate stocks of ergotamine tartarate, which is used to treat migraines, or fermentation tanks of Claviceps paspali fungus to synthesize the lysergic acid precursor. An interesting question is why production was apparently so extremely centralized. Potency? Synthesis chops? Market structure? C.

By: bryan

bryan — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 22:30:07 +0000

Well other things that might affect this, the drug war’s focus on LSD in the 90s made it likely that anyone caught with a couple sheets by Feds would be doing around 10 years, as LSD was never the most profitable drug this no doubt helped deplete the number of sources, either from fear or just getting busted (in fact a little family of ‘committed hippies’ i knew stopped dealing LSD in about 92 because it was just too dangerous [chickenshit fuckwads]). According to various studies the amount that one needs to be effected by lsd is 60-70 mics, hence the 100 micrograms as a normal dosage in the 80s always struck me as a reasonable level. The 250 mic dosages of the 60’s no doubt had a lot to do with its ‘spiritual’ significance, but was not the best thing to give someone on their first time out. LSD may also have suffered a decrease in usage because of the increase in designer psychedelics, http://mdma.net/pea.html http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shulgin/adsarchive/2cb.htm , which basically work off the fact that psychedelics are built very easily from a benzene ring as foundation. Various amines, including LSA the precursor to LSD, are psychedelics, I believe ketamine was popular in the nightclubbing scene a few years back. So I would assume basically heterogeneity of tastes led to the dilution of demand among the cognoscenti, which given the basically nerdy subculture of psychedelics was much more important than whether or not one had a bunch of the great unwashed still clamoring for doses. I actually have some small personal knowledge on this subject, from the 80s and 90s wave.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 20:12:23 +0000

“If you define a dose of LSD as 100 micrograms, Apperson and Pickard had around 400 million hits in stock. At the more common dosage level of 20 micrograms, the two were sitting on 2 billion hits.” Finally read the article. Uh folks, in 1968 the common dose was 250. Experienced users did considerably more.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:35:59 +0000

I don’t know if this will bore people, it kinda bores me a little but I have given the subject some thought. It may be long. 1)Been sober for 25 years, unless you count freshly ground Guatemala Antigua with a touch of French Roast. 2)Never done many drugs, including alcohol and pot. Found them boring. Mushrooms, mescaline, etc too much physical effects, distracted me. A waste of time. 3) People waste their youth in different ways. At one point I thought it would be exciting and important to understand Finnegan’s Wake. After two years of intense study, well, was not very exciting or important. 4) And 1965-1975 did acid more than 100 times. As an intellectual challenge. Many might say it damaged my life and brain, I think not. Tho it probably changed them. …. 5)My best experiences:Schoenberg Concerto for 18 Instruments, W Stevens “Comedian as the Letter C”(I know, not his strongest poem,I am not very smart)…and the Mahler 9th. God is good, life is good enough, because of the Mahler 9th. 6) “Familiarity Breeds Contempt” after the first few times, you learn you are not going to go crazy or jump out a window. And the effects diminish drastically. A real effort has to be made, tho hard to describe the nature of the effort, to avoid reaching a point “Walls are melting, ho-hum, think I will turn on Scooby Doo” 7) Think of a common optical illusion, the lady and the vase, for instance. You stare at it, the perspectives keep shifting, you make whatever kind of effort needed to see one or the other (perceptual scientists help here)….and a certain frisson or anxiety is experienced. And maybe unavoidable. And I think this may be 90% of the LSD experience, this anxiety of perceptual dissonance. Maybe just a scam. 8) And it is not memorable. Ok, some obvious hallucinations, but they were not what was important to the experience. Ask me what I saw, what I heard, and I can describe little that was different. It just felt different. 9) Was it worth it? Well, would I recommend someone study FW? I would probably recommend against it. Anyone who sticks with it, for most people will abandon it, will get exactly what they deserve. And in general, don’t bother with LSD. But I will carry that long night with the Mahler 9th to my grave.