10 Scientific and Technological Visionaries Who Experimented With Drugs

I recommend a 7% solution.

NEVER sell weed -it defeats the whole spirit o' the stuff ! and +^d

Have not "tripped" in 35 years and have no desire to do acid again because it's too intense. But mescaline...just wish a person could still find the real thing nowadaze. It was the best.

True.

That reminds me that in the town next to the one I was living in was where Sandoz Laboratories was (is) based. So the LSD was 100% (I'd say around '65 to '73), and there were crates of the stuff, and some guys cut their hair to get jobs there and would spread around their "finds." The last time I ever tripped on acid was at Woodstock, because it was absolutely perfect. As for mescaline, I can't even imagine there's ANY real stuff anywhere anymore. Now that I'm lots older (BIG sigh), I sometimes wonder if I would ever again smoke some homegrown pot.

For many years, I was on the road, and I saw a horrible amount of destruction amongst my musician-friends because of drugs leading to harder crap, and I could no longer stand even looking at anyone so high I had to pull them out of their beds so we could catch our next flight. No matter what, though, they'd get onstage and... WOW! Never figured it out.

Wow! Pure LSD the stuff of legends. Never got to try it because you guys did it all before it got to the midwest:) The best LSD I ever did was Window Pane in the mid/ late 1970s.
Only smoke pot once in a while nowadaze but if the laws change I'll have a joint in each hand!
But mescaline was by far my favorite. If only I could find the real thing,sigh. I always explain it by telling everyone it was like every color was intensified 10 fold. The day after I was always sore from laughing so much. Oh to be able to go back.

According to Huxley (and I believe he is right), most people prefer emotionally stimulating propaganda over and above intellectual argument as the basis for making their decisions.

Does this remind you of Fox News. They just flit from one adrenalin pumping sound bite to the next. Never connecting the dots. Their audience seems to be in a stupor, exhausted, unable to think, because of over stimulated adrenals; but craving more "red meat".

good observation +^d

That Demond Weed with roots in HELL !

or at least a bucket :)

- heh. +^d

+^d

see comment above

I'm trying not to make this into a drug thing, because I see the point. But it SEEMS (and I could be off here and only viewing it through my own perspective) that this article is attempting to endorse the use of illicit drugs by drawing a conclusion from a casual correlation.

However, your statement makes me look at this in a different light. Perhaps the implication is the idea that risks, and thinking outside the societal box, so to speak, is a more sure way to create new and innovative ideas and modes of thinking? And not neccessarily and endorsement of drug use?

Because the introduction to the actual article itself, while saying that there is no evidence of causative link, certainly asserts the likelihood that one exists.

"the implication is the idea that risks, and thinking outside the societal box, so to speak, is a more sure way to create new and innovative ideas"

- that was my thrust - on drug use itself, in and of itself, I am neutral,....but I think it is a personal freedom issue. ( And I don't regret any of the few times I have done hallucinogens,.......but I find "recreational" drug use a poor description ; perhaps "growth experience" or something like that. )

What is the sound of one hand clapping ? Well,....slap yourself smartly on the face with one hand, - SLAP- ! The answer is ; "not what you think".

Gotcha. And like I said, I tend to agree with the general underlying principal. However, as a recovering drug addict (6 years clean and sober) some find it ironic that I am a proponent of legalization. I too think it is a personal freedom issue, and also, not everyone who uses drugs is an addict. I just know how devestatingly dangerous and addictive they CAN be more often than not. I tend to instinctively react negatively to people putting a positive spin on drug use. (Not talking about marijuana here as I think that is fairly innocuous) When in fact drug use is inherently dangerous, and in most cases detrimental. Though I would not change my own past because it helped shape who I am today, I also would not want anyone to have to experience the ravages I had to in order to learn similar life lessons. But, everyone has to learn them in their own way, so it is always such a, not sensitive, but delicate topic I guess you could say. I would never endorse a ban on drugs, but I also don't endorse their use. If that makes any sense...LOL...

Some scientists and authors used drugs. Some of these people said they liked using them and some said; or others implied that the drugs they used, contributed to their work product; or at least didn't keep them from making recognized contributions to society.

Therefore, people who use drugs should not be subjected to a blanket social condemnation or restricted by law from experimenting. I think that is the argument. I personally find it weak. But I think that is the point of the article.

In a certain light, it reminds me of the motivations and defense arguments of Leopold and Loeb. Leopold, age 19 at the time of the murder, and Loeb, 18, believed themselves to be Nietzschean supermen who could commit a "perfect crime" (in this case a kidnapping and murder).[2] Before the murder, Leopold had written to Loeb: "A superman ... is, on account of certain superior qualities inherent in him, exempted from the ordinary laws which govern men. He is not liable for anything he may do." (Remind you of some Libertarians, or maybe I'm just thinking of Charlie Sheen).

A completely fair and understandable position and comment. +^d

I think the point is more that these "ordinary laws" -as embodied in these "drug laws",...are arbitrarily restrictive and the product of the bias of small mindedness conceived to simply impose a facade of order and control,....over that which SIMPLY DOES NOT NEED TO BE CONTROLLED ; reality maps/ world views/ states of consciousness.

You can prosecute someone for murder,.....and "drug crime incidents" ,.....for the "hit-n-run" and such like,... ACTUALLY DAMAGING EVIL-DOINGS,.....by themselves.

Its more an issue that "small minded society,...and individuals" does not have the right to ASSUME the consequence of "murder" from drug use, and prosecute it in advance.

(As an aside, I have always maintained that we are ALL better off simply by being farther away from each other. )

I think from the micro view, you have a point. I think from the macro view ranging from the Chinese experience with mass opium addiction to the civil chaos in Columbia and Mexico, that society has a very legitimate right to intervene. Society is mainly concerned with the building and maintenance of a matrix in which to raise our young. Drug addiction is seen as a threat to the young and vulnerable-- the future of man. I don't think anybody would much care if a bunch of old farts without family responsibilities (who support themselves) were baked all the time. Now, I must add that I don't think there is any simple set of answers to dopamine addiction, or to how it should be regulated. Obviously we're doing something wrong, or so many people wouldn't be incarcerated or dead. But whenever I see one of these "C'mon and try it , you'll like it, it will make you smarter, sexier" articles, I feel compelled to offer my two cents, on the hope that I can deter some young person from "experimenting" with their brain.