XPost: alt.drugs.psychedelics, alt.drugs, alt.drugs.rfg   
   XPost: rec.drugs.psychedelic   
   From: rfgdxm@SPAMSUCKSmochamail.com   
      
   Frederick Burroughs wrote:   
   > "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" wrote:   
      
   >>    Which recreational drug users? Seriously. The vast majority of   
   >> people I have encountered faced to face who had taken LSD either   
   >> thought it sucked, or just that it was uninteresting. What is your   
   >> sample set for the data to make that statement? People who actually   
   >> thought the Grateful Dead had serious musical talent? Note here that   
   >> I am writing this as a person who personally has found LSD far more   
   >> enjoyable as a drug than DXM. However, I am just one data point.   
   >   
   > Jesus fucking christ.  My sample set are the friends and acquaintances   
   > I've tripped with, or discussed tripping with, face to face.  Gosh,   
   > I'd say probably about 50 different people, maybe more, over the   
   > years.  Aside from a very small percentage of people who experienced   
   > severe panic reactions, everyone else enjoyed it thoroughly and valued   
   > the experience.  Every trip, if the dose was good, was memorable and   
   > exceptional.  I can't imagine anyone who has tripped well saying it   
   > sucked, or was uninteresting.   
      
      Which begs the question of what the characteristics are of the sample set   
   that are your friends and acquaintances? The majority of people I have ever   
   encountered face to face who had taken LSD either thought it wasn't a very   
   interesting drug, or that it sucked. (Note I just said "majority", a   
   minority did like it.) This sample of people I encountered tended to be the   
   sort who thought heroin, crack or meth were really good drugs. Which I'll   
   concede makes my sample also somewhat skewed. My point is that I question   
   that your sample is such that you can conclude "For recreational drug users,   
   LSD is gold."   
      
   >>> DXM becomes a psychedelic   
   >>> only at doses well above recommended therapeutic doses, does it not?   
   >>   
   >>    Huh? LSD becomes a psychedelic only well above recommended   
   >> therapeutic doses, because of the fact that LSD was discarded by the   
   >> medical profession decades ago as being therapeutically worthless.   
   >> Thus the therapeutic dose of LSD is 0 mcg.   
   >   
   > Stick to the point.  You advertise DXM as a psychedelic drug.  You are   
   > aware of the dose needed to achieve psychedelic or hallucinogenic   
   > effect.  At what dose does DXM become psychedelic, or psychotomimetic   
   > as you are fond of saying?   
      
      Generally above 1.5 mg/kg.   
      
   > LSD was prescribed as a therapeutic drug in psychotherapy.  There is   
   > considerable literature describing this function, including dosages   
   > and precautions.  Its therapeutic use became compromised by political   
   > and public health concerns resulting from a spate of abuse in the   
   > '60s.  The widespread negative public attitude toward LSD in the '60s   
   > made it a professional liability.  Government legislation sealed its   
   > fate.  Again, LSD has a history of professional use in psychotherapy,   
   > as a constituent of psychedelic drug therapy.   
      
      Morphine is widely prized as an enjoyable recreational drug, has a long   
   history of abuse, and is still used in medicine. Just because people get   
   high on a drug doesn't mean doctors abandon using it therapeutically. The   
   truth is that the medical community just realized that LSD had no serious   
   therapeutic uses. Whether a drug has therapeutic uses is something doctors   
   decide, not me or you.   
   --   
   http://www.dextromethorphan.ws/   
   For information about the psychedelic drug DXM, including dangers.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)