XPost: alt.drugs.psychedelics, alt.drugs, alt.drugs.rfg
XPost: rec.drugs.psychedelic
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:44:51 -0500, "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski"
wrote:
>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."
>
He can speak for himself, but my thought on the point he was making
was for a psychedelic drug, LSD is gold, more so than DXM or perhaps
shrooms for example. That was my take. I don't think that he was
saying it's better than crack, heroin or meth, each being rather
unique to themselves and not really being a psychedelic type of drug.
>>>> 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.
>
Where is your DEA number that gives you the right to prescribe drugs
and doses?
>> 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.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
