Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The drug revolution that no one can stop

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 125 posts

Re: The drug revolution that no one can stop

#11

Post by sillysaurus3 »

krick wrote: post #8
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out the history of LSD. It almost wasn't invented. They tested it on animals, and noticed "some level of disturbance" or some such, but nobody had any clue what the effects were, and nobody really cared. Then someone decided to try it on themselves. The only reason that was able to happen is because the legal and ethical restrictions were looser than they are today. In the meantime, several other such experimen…

AFAIK, Hoffman didn't really "decide to try it on himself", but accidentally got some dose through his skin because of working without gloves and felt that something is not right . I don't remember where I got that — I guess it was his autobiography or something.

You're absolutely right. I screwed up in my recollection of that. The experiment wasn't intentional. It may be true that the legal restrictions were looser back then, but it had nothing to do with the discovery of LSD. My bad.

It's interesting to realize that it did require human experimentation in order to discover, though. But maybe I'm flat out wrong about chemists dying through self-experimentation.

Regardless, I'll start re-checking my sources before saying anything.

Re: The drug revolution that no one can stop

#12

Post by girvo »

I wish I could share some of my knowledge regarding this. Funnily, a good friend of mine in NZ is working for the NZ government, and he synthesizes and tests new drugs, mostly cannabinoids but others too, and works with the NZ government to determine safety. Fascinating character, too. There is an underground forum where the smartest chemists I've ever come across hang out and discuss these novel chemicals, and the routes to get to them.

Re: The drug revolution that no one can stop

#13

Post by k-mcgrady »

krick wrote: post #10

Oh, I really hate these articles. Intriguing headline and then a horribly long story with all these pseudo-artistic details like "immediately noticed a tense quality in the ambulance driver’s voice" wich is just too bothersome to actually read it. Some TLDR, anyone?

>> "pseudo-artistic details like "immediately noticed a tense quality in the ambulance driver’s voice""

You mean storytelling?

Re: The drug revolution that no one can stop

#14

Post by veb »

girvo wrote: post #12

I wish I could share some of my knowledge regarding this. Funnily, a good friend of mine in NZ is working for the NZ government, and he synthesizes and tests new drugs, mostly cannabinoids but others too, and works with the NZ government to determine safety. Fascinating character, too. There is an underground forum where the smartest chemists I've ever come across hang out and discuss these novel chemicals, and the r…

In NZ now, the manufacturer needs to be able to prove their drug is safe before it can be 'okayed' by the gov. Saves us from the shitty artificial cannabinoids that was causing so much trouble. It's odd, considering there's so many people selling quality Marijuana everywhere...

I just wish we could follow what Colorado has done.

Re: The drug revolution that no one can stop

#15

Post by krick »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #11
krick wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, Hoffman didn't really "decide to try it on himself", but accidentally got some dose through his skin because of working without gloves and felt that something is not right . I don't remember where I got that — I guess it was his autobiography or something.

You're absolutely right. I screwed up in my recollection of that. The experiment wasn't intentional. It may be true that the legal restrictions were looser back then, but it had nothing to do with the discovery of LSD. My bad. It's interesting to realize that it did require human experimentation in order to discover, though. But maybe I'm flat out wrong about chemists dying through self-experimentation. Regardless, I…

> It's interesting to realize that it did require human experimentation in order to discover, though.

Yeah, in hindsight it is, but if we try to remember history of pretty much every discovery — it all actually required some human experimentation. Everything starts from accidentally noticing something — something unknown and thus potentially risky. I remember how funny it sounded back then in school when somebody was telling about Volta checking if there is electricity by putting wires in his own ears. Because, — yeah, who does that! — right? But back then there was no other way to tell! (Of course voltage must have been really low, but still, I find it quite demonstrative.)

I like to think that this actually is the essence of science: doing apparently stupid things and foolishly risking even your own health because of sheer curiosity.

Re: The drug revolution that no one can stop

#16

Post by pasbesoin »

girvo wrote: post #12

I wish I could share some of my knowledge regarding this. Funnily, a good friend of mine in NZ is working for the NZ government, and he synthesizes and tests new drugs, mostly cannabinoids but others too, and works with the NZ government to determine safety. Fascinating character, too. There is an underground forum where the smartest chemists I've ever come across hang out and discuss these novel chemicals, and the r…

One of the smartest people I've known had a long-standing interest in this area -- e.g. coming up with his own grow units for magic mushrooms.

He didn't just want to trip. When he took on the interest, he became a veritable encyclopedia on mushrooms, of various sorts and in general.

This was also back many years before the current "Maker" trend. I guess you could call him a prototype, or an example of a constant -- there has always been a certain number of these highly intelligent free-thinkers and builders.

I was never and am not into drugs. Getting to know him, however, did make my take a closer look at re-evaluate much of the simplistic "drugs are bad" indoctrination I'd encountered and been force fed growing up.

Just as life and current circumstances have taught me to more carefully re-evaluate other tropes such as "paying one's dues" and the "self-made man [person]".

I'm reminded of decades of research into cannabis severely stunted, so I read, by government policy and laws. "It's bad" and "because we say so" does not comport well with open and full-ranging scientific inquiry.

Re: The drug revolution that no one can stop

#17

Post by Nursie »

Interesting that this article, originally investigated and published over a year ago, mentions phenmetrazine - derivatives have just started to appear on the grey market....

--edit-- I'm amazed at the quote from Caldicott at the end. WEDINOS is widely used by the NPS community to check the identity of their substances. It allows the project to map out drug emergence and for the users it provides a little safety check. For the founder to have been someone who considers drug use a disease and prohibition like an antibiotic seems to go against the open, harm-reductive effects of the service itself.

Re: The drug revolution that no one can stop

#20

Post by lol123456 »

Alex3917 wrote: post #7
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out the history of LSD. It almost wasn't invented. They tested it on animals, and noticed "some level of disturbance" or some such, but nobody had any clue what the effects were, and nobody really cared. Then someone decided to try it on themselves. The only reason that was able to happen is because the legal and ethical restrictions were looser than they are today. In the meantime, several other such experimen…

To the best of my knowledge there haven't been any deaths among chemists bioassaying new compounds for psychoactive potential. This isn't surprising, considering the vast majority of the 'new' research chemicals coming onto the market were first synthesized by the same 5 or 10, all of whom were/are very cautious and well educated. The closest I've heard of is the grad student who gave himself Parkinsons and later die…

An alcohol maker doesn't have to be an alcoholic. More alcoholics die everyday than alcohol makers measured by numbers and percentages.

1 alcohol maker can probably support 1000 drunks everyday. The maker doesn't have to drink, just taste a tiny bit for quality assurance.

In the same vein the chemists can never know about interaction effects.

Post reply on HN