Sasha Shulgin, Psychedelic Chemist

Saturday, September 20, 2008

By DENNIS ROMERO

Alexander Shulgin, psychedelic chemist

LAFAYETTE, Calif. -- Perhaps it was a sign of things to come when a seven-story Monterrey Pine came crashing down on the property of old Alexander T. Shulgin--Sasha, they call him--missing his musty cobweb-entangled drug lab by inches.

It could have been a good sign because the cantankerous 70-year-old wasn't around the back-yard workshop conducting one of his legendary experiments, which have been known to involve him downing any number of the new psychedelic drugs he invents in the name of science. Imagine losing your mind on some unknown compound with unknown powers (some of this stuff makes LSD look like Vitamin D)--and a tree the length of three buses rocks your world to Richter proportions. The aliens have arrived!

Maybe, though, it was a sign of nefarious things to come. Like the DEA guys who came knocking only days later, sniffing around the lab in search of improprieties. Or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency people who checked out the lab that day last June, taking notes while nosing around the beakers. (They found everything in order, says a representative.) The feds have arrived!

To tell the truth, Sasha Shulgin doesn't much care anymore what the government thinks.

He's tippy-toed around the law and the lawmen for long enough--30 years now. Since the mid-'60s, the tall, lanky, silver-haired chemistry professor has quietly invented drugs under the cover of a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration license that allows him to analyze contraband so he can give expert testimony in drug trials. It doesn't exactly allow him to invent the stuff, though, and Uncle Sam appears to be getting cold feet about Shulgin's exploits.

But Shulgin's life's work is practically complete and he's ready to shout it out. "I feel the need of a public voice with some level of academic background . . . " His message: "All drugs should be made legal."

With or without the DEA's approval, the public is now able to see pages and pages documenting all the world's known psychedelic drugs--many of them invented by The Man himself: the compound structures, the lab names, street names and, more importantly, what they do to people or, more precisely, what they've done to him and wife Ann, his 64-year-old partner-in-chem.

Part I, a book they call "Pihkal," was self-published in 1991. Part II, to be called "Tihkal," is due at the end of the year. The two books provide recipes for almost every mind-bending drug known to humankind. To Shulgin, the books provide scientific knowledge that proves drugs are a tool for the human mind. "The track record," he says, "is that there is great promise."

No one else on the planet has done more drugs, they say, than Sasha and Ann Shulgin. He is known for reviving the almost-century-old designer drug ecstasy, earning him the title "stepfather of MDMA."

"What he almost single-handedly attempted to do," says psychedelic supporter and Nobel Prize-winning chemist Kary Mullis, "was to chart out this whole area of compounds." Says psychedelic godfather Timothy Leary, "I consider Shulgin and his wife to be two of the most important scientists of the 20th Century."

The Shulgins are legends among some academics--LSD inventor Albert Hofmann, now retired in Switzerland, is a friend. But they are little known to the outside world--they were never a part of the counterculture.

Shulgin's work has put him in the odd position of being a source of information for both the Establishment (during his decade working for Dow Chemical and his two decades testifying for both the prosecution and the defense in drug cases) and psychedelic drug advocates (his science has been used to bolster the cause for legal psychedelic drug research on humans, which is now taking place after a 20-year hiatus).

"There's nothing wrong with making information available," he says, legs crossed and drinking iced tea on his patio.

The DEA, which repeatedly declined to comment on the Shulgin case, might disagree. The agency did confirm in a statement that it is attempting to strip Shulgin of his drug-handling license and that a hearing on the matter has been scheduled for Feb. 13. And the U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco is keeping a file on Shulgin, although no charges have been brought. No one from that office would comment either.

It's hard to find anyone with ill will toward Shulgin, although there are those opposed to the philosophy of his ilk. Psychedelic drugs are dangerous, opponents say--toxic to animals and dangerous to those who lose their minds and attempt crazy things like trying to fly. "One of the things psychedelic drug activists promote is that drugs are not a problem--that we haven't learned to use them properly," Wayne J. Roques, a retired Miami-based DEA agent and anti-drug activist, said in an interview last year.

"That's one of the nonsensical things that they say," Roques said. "They seem to think it's a human condition to use psychoactive drugs and that's simply not so."

"I first explored mescaline in the late '50s," Shulgin says. "Three-hundred-fifty to 400 milligrams. I learned there was a great deal inside me," he replies.

"That's a considerable experience," Ann says, puffing a cigarette and nodding.

Shulgin's romance with psychedelics started after the war. He served his time in the Navy and finished school at UC Berkeley, earning a Ph.D. in biochemistry. "There was no mention of rebellion at that point," Shulgin says. "I was all smiles, open."

In the '60s he did post-doctorate work in psychiatry and pharmacology at UC San Francisco and became a senior research chemist at Dow Chemical Co. He invented a profit-making insecticide, so Dow gave him a long leash. But while America's anti-drug fervor picked up, Dow found itself in the uncomfortable position of holding several patents on psychedelic drugs.

Shulgin left the company in 1965, built his lab and became, as he puts it, a "scientific consultant." That meant teaching public health at Berkeley and San Francisco General Hospital, among other jobs. It also eventually meant inventing more than 150 drugs in his lab. "To me," he says, "having your own lab is a very extreme pleasure."

Shulgin's spread sits atop a rolling, rural utopia east of Berkeley. The old brick lab lies down the path from his boxy white house, which sits on property that has been in the family for more than 50 years.

To this day his lab looks low-tech--lined with beakers, test-tubes, stills and pumps. It's funky but functional, like Shulgin. He wears handmade huaraches with his tuxedo at special events and drives a '73 bug.

Shulgin met Ann at Berkeley in 1979. Ann, became Shulgin's soul mate, a fellow psychedelic explorer with a penchant for Peyote. ("I've read all of Castaneda," she says.) They were married in Shulgin's back yard in 1981. The man who married them, they say, was a DEA agent.

As Ann put it, "Before 'Pihkal,' we had a real good relationship with the DEA. They have few people they can talk to who are on the other side of the fence who are honest." Says psychedelic drug activist Rick Doblin, "That was his Faustian bargain--in order to do his work, he had to be useful to the DEA."

"It was not a quid pro quo," Shulgin says. "I make my research available to the government as much as anyone else."

Shulgin wrote the book on the law and drugs--"Controlled Substances: Chemical & Legal Guide to Federal Drug Laws" (Ronin Publishing, 1988), a book that sits on the desk of many law enforcement officials to this day. "He's a reputable researcher," says Geraline Lin, a drug researcher at the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

By the '80s, though, Shulgin wasn't famous for any books he wrote or any drugs he invented, but rather for a drug he didn't invent. In the '70s, a friend had suggested he check out a pill that was going around called MDMA, or "empathy." He tested it, tried it and wrote a lot about it in academic journals.

For better or for worse, Shulgin rescued the drug (known in the lab as methylenedioxy- methamphetamine) from obscurity. Invented around 1912, no one found much use for it until Shulgin came along. He suggested time and again that the stuff was good for therapy. The drug's effects are described as lying somewhere between those of LSD and speed. "I still haven't found anything like it to this day," Shulgin says.

But the drug found an empathetic audience in the nightclub crowd. Dealers renamed the drug "ecstasy" for better marketability. And the U.S. government outlawed MDMA in 1985.

A young group of scientists led by Doblin tried to preserve the drug's legality, arguing that the stuff was valuable for unearthing repressed thoughts and memories. Shulgin assisted the best he could, providing science from the shadows. But the government found that the drug caused brain damage in animals. "The one thing that is clear," says UCLA psychopharmacologist Ronald K. Siegel, "is that there is a lot of damage here with MDMA."

Shulgin says testing drugs on animals isn't worth dog doo. "There are real problems involved in testing a rat for empathy or changes in self-image," he told an English magazine last year.

"In a lot of ways, Sasha was demoralized after MDMA became illegal," says Doblin, president of the Charlotte, N.C.-based Multidisciplinary Assn. for Psychedelic Studies. "It was the best candidate for legal therapy out of all the drugs he helped create."

But there was always Shulgin's trusty lab, which provided fodder for intimate trips with Ann and friends. Those times, up at his hilltop home, amid the rosemary bushes and live oak, surrounded by the smells of fennel, rue and bay, were magical, they say. "Inventing new psychoactive drugs," Ann says, "is like composing new music."

Sometimes, the music could be maddening. One time a friend, testing out a new Shulgin creation he called 5-TOM, became temporarily paralyzed and completely zombie-fied. It terrified the Shulgins. "There's no experience of this complexity without instances of difficulty," Shulgin says.

A few drugs Shulgin invented, substances with names such as STP and 2CB, escaped to the streets of San Francisco. Amateur chemists read Shulgin's published research and made batches for sale. Like most of the drugs in his book, they were included on the federal government's outlaw list of drugs, called Schedule I.

"A lot of the materials in Schedule I are my invention," Shulgin says. "I'm not sure if it's a point of pride or a point of shame."

Shulgin's rebound came in 1991 when "Pihkal: A Chemical Love Story" (Transform Press) was published. For fans of psychedelia, it was an instant collector's item. "I think Pihkal," Leary says, "is right up there with Darwin's 'Origins . . . ' "

"The history of psychedelic drugs is still being written," says Siegel, who is respected both by the authorities and legalization activists. "Even though Shulgin's observations may not be entirely scientific, they are an important start since he's the only one who has made some of these observations and taken some of these drugs."

"Pihkal," which has sold more than 15,000 copies, covers about half the psychedelic drugs known to humankind--the "phenethylamines I have known and loved," as the book's title suggests. The phenethylamine group of compounds includes such substances as MDMA and mescaline. The other half--a group that includes everything from toad venom to magic mushrooms--will be included in the forthcoming "Tihkal"--for "tryptamines I have known and loved."

To understand the Shulgins is to understand their unwavering belief that these drugs have untold powers and that we, as a society, are ignorant of these powers--like early man who shied away from fire. Yet Shulgin's words are almost always sober: "I'm very confident that there will come a time when this work will be recognized for its medical value."

In 1992 he testified before NIDA that psychedelic drug research using humans should once again be made fully legal (it was all but outlawed in 1970). Shulgin invoked his own legally questionable research on humans.

At the meeting, says Doblin, who was there, "he describes the work that he's doing with human beings, in a way that its clear that it's illegal." Even so, Shulgin influenced NIDA's position that human studies should restart, which they did. "Shulgin put himself on the line," says Lin, who chaired the meeting.

"It was a scientific meeting, not a political one," says Shulgin, understated as usual. "I was explicit, but not provocative."

Later, Shulgin makes this much clear: "It's my stance that what I do is nothing illegal."

In 1986, the federal government outlawed research on humans using drugs that resemble banned drugs, called analogs. Before then, research using designer drugs that weren't expressly outlawed skirted the rules (using an MDEA compound instead of MDMA, for example).

"Since '86, I've stopped all research in this direction," he says, i.e., he doesn't test drugs on humans. He adds that he still invents drugs and feels it's still legal as long as he has his drug-handling license. "I synthesize materials for publication," he says.

This balancing act is in response to the pressure he's been feeling from the DEA. It's ironic, say Shulgin's supporters: He has provided science to the government (most often in cases involving methamphetamine) and all takers only to be taken to task in the end for that very science. "Shulgin's not a criminal," says Mullis, "he's a chemist."

So imagine Shulgin's consternation recently when he found himself playing a gig (he plays the viola with a local orchestra for kicks) at the nearby Bohemian Grove and club guest Newt Gingrich starts talking about . . . drugs.

Normally, this all-male club (the word exclusive is not exclusive enough to describe its clientele) is not so serious--the site of nude rampaging, mock-Druid fire rituals and all manner of back-to-roots male bonding. Snort-Snort. So when Gingrich started talking about a topic Shulgin has studied for 30 years, he kept his mouth shut and his ears open.

"He was very correct," Shulgin says.

"You have two alternatives: We either have to take Draconian means and break the back of the problem, or legalize drugs. I believe in the latter choice."

Source: Los Angeles Times
Date: 5 September 1995

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Don't light up that grill, killer!

Friday, September 12, 2008

Unlit filtered cigarettesImage via Wikipedia According to a report from the BBC, a new study says that cranking up your backyard grill could kill you with cancer. Specifically, they say:

A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes. Dioxins are a group of chemicals known to increase the likelihood of cancer.

That's pretty scary, isn't it? The equivalent of 220,000 cigarettes! For all of you readers who have believed that second-hand smoke is dangerous, think about the secondary meaning of the statement above. If you have trouble believing that a barbeque is dangerous, how can smoke from a few cigarettes be of any significance at all? There certainly is no location on earth that has ever had the smoke from 220,000 cigarettes.

If we're to take the report as scientific, then the danger from one cigarette's second-hand smoke must be 1/220,000th as dangerous as a single barbeque. Actually, the report doesn't say they're referring to second-hand smoke. They could be saying that all the smoke from 220,000 cigarettes is equal to one barbeque. That would be first-hand smoke, the kind I've gleefully filled my lungs with for 40-some years.

So... for all of you who are convinced that cigarette smoke causes cancer, kills tens of thousands of people every year, reduces birth weight, and all the other nonsense that has been pumped toward us... you should REALLY get up in arms about barbeques!

If cigarettes are so dangerous that they've been doubled (or more) in price with taxes, and outlawed in many places, what would be the appropriate reaction to a FAR GREATER risk?

Rest easy for a moment... the article goes on to say:

"I'm sure that just the odd barbecue during the summer is not going to have any effect. "But if you have a barbecue once or twice a week through the summer, and all crowd round it and inhale the fumes then over 10 or 20 years maybe that would do something."

Now that's more believable, isn't it? Nevertheless, the author recommends putting warnings on grills.

People have been barbequing for a long time, and some people do it almost daily. Barbeques have become standard operating procedure for home get-togethers, and are in the news frequently as the Presidential candidates travel around campaigning... at barbeques. John Kerry recently held a big barbeque at his home (well... his wife's home).

Unfortunately for you barbeque fans, the fumes aren't the only danger you're facing. The "carbonizing" result of barbequing (that dark crustiness that's the main appeal of barbequed food) possibly causes cancer too.

If we were to take this report seriously (and I doubt that you will), we'd be justified in taking the following actions:

Banning TV advertising of grills, briquets, barbeque tools, barbeque sauces, etc., so that our children don't get corrupted into thinking that such things are OK.

Bringing class action lawsuits against the manufacturers of all those products (especially Kingsford Charcoal) since they must have (or should have) known that they were pushing cancerous products off on an unsuspecting public. Undoubtedly a major charcoal "settlement" should be forthcoming, with huge payments extracted from the violators, with the proceeds to be distributed to offset the additional medical costs from all those extra cancer cases.

Restrictions on barbequing in locations where the fumes might drift toward other people. We could certainly set distance limits like no barbequing within 1,000 feet of a school, church, or other public meeting place. Certainly, grills would have to be removed from all public parks.

To further protect our children, there must be a minimum age requirement for purchase of barbequing "paraphenalia", with serious fines for any merchant selling to minors.

Naturally, special taxes will have to applied to all barbeque-related products, to encourage the poor hapless victims of addicting crispies to QUIT their smelly, dangerous habit.

C'mon folks... it's only fair... all those things have been done, and are continuing to be done, by the anti-smoking campaigns, and it's clear how much more destructive barbeques are. If we're concerned about our health, can we do less for a danger that's WAY worse?

I hope this nonsense is really beginning to soak in. Is the lightbulb over your head starting to flicker?

The second-hand smoke issue was CREATED, from scratch, for political purposes, because nobody could make a solid case against FIRST-HAND smoke. Smokers didn't buy it, and wouldn't quit, so they invented the second-hand smoke issue to try to "guilt" smokers into quitting for the sake of "others".

All of the numbers you've heard about deaths from second-hand smoke are projections, based on faulty assumptions. Never, ever, has there been a real death attributed to second-hand smoke, and there are massive studies over many years that show NO effect from second-hand smoke.

But... so many people believed the lies that it has now become "common knowledge". If you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth.

Smokers have warned for many years that the people profiting from the anti-tobacco campaigns would eventually turn their greed toward other areas. Attacks on fast food, and more, are well underway. Thousands of organizations have received funds diverted from the tobacco settlement. Thousand of attorneys have received truly gross fees from tobacco trials, and many other organizations have suckered hundreds of thousands into volunteering their time and money for "the cause".

The tactics of unscrupulous scare-mongers are gradually taking choices away from us and, frankly, taking a lot of fun out of life. Worse, they're gradually corrupting scientists with funds paid for producing the "correct" results. The result is that the public doesn't know what to believe any longer. Media will always report anything that is scary, especially if it sounds even a little bit scientific. That's how the lies get repeated.

Barbequers of the world... I doubt that you have to worry. Grilling is an American institution. Millions of men now pride themselves on their grilling, and their women are more than glad to get rid of some cooking. Having a good grill, your own set of unique grilling tools, and your own special techniques is part of the American male role now. Political shindigs are not likely to switch to serving sushi. Barbeque will likely "get a free pass", like the most destructive of our bad habits... liquor... does.

I love barbequed food, and liquor, and I also enjoy smoking cigarettes. Too bad so many of you have copped out on my favored "bad habit". Don't expect any support from me when "they" come after yours.

from:

"." 12 Sep. 2008 .

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Not Smoking Kills

The cigarette is the most common method of smo...Image via Wikipedia For decades, America has had a destructive war against tobacco products and those who use them. Tobacco as a crop was so important that it is quite possible that the British colonies that eventually became the United States would have failed, with settlers returning to England. Tobacco growing and product manufacturing was important enough to have received government subsidization until very recently. Historically, tobacco smoking was considered something of a miracle cure for many ailments.

About 50 years ago, a campaign began to blame smoking for cancer. Cancer had become such a terrifying disease that the word "cancer" was often alluded to rather than speaking the name aloud, even being referred to as the C disease. The American Cancer Society, having failed to produce significant results in fighting cancer, chose to erect smoking as a straw man to take heat off themselves. Since that beginning, one of the world's great frauds has proceeded, to demonize smoking to the point that most people believe there is unquestionable scientific evidence that smoking is a major killer. When even that level of fright didn't convince smokers to quit, the spectre of "secondhand" smoke was created out of thin air, to continue the campaign that was making so many organizations rich on donations and tax money in hopes of actually curing cancer. Deception, outright lies, and statistical trickery have been used to such a great and effective extent that "junk science" has spread to many other areas.

Even though over half of American smokers have long since quit, the health benefits are invisible. If anything, America is less healthy in significant ways. The health BENEFITS of smoking, even though scientifically obvious, have been blasted out of existence as more and more smokers have been forced to quit and as researchers with any positive results have been demonized and even physically threatened.

One thing is clear to me: If smoking had not been made the false demon causing many ailments, and the money and effort that went into the war on smoking had been spent on actually learning what causes cancer, heart disease, etc., we might actually have cures by now. Perhaps when all smoking has finally been eliminated, we will all realize that the War on Smoking has, like all wars, been pure destruction with no upside at all.
from:

"Writings about the War on Smoking." 12 Sep. 2008 .


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Facebook | SAY NO TO DRUGS Before it's too late

Saturday, September 6, 2008

A CBP officer displays a large bag of seized c...Image via Wikipedia Facebook | SAY NO TO DRUGS Before it's too late: "Many teens try alcohol, tobacco, or drugs, but using these substances is not safe or legal. Some teens try these substances only a few times and stop. Others can't control their cravings for them. This is substance abuse.

Teens may try a number of substances, including cigarettes, alcohol, household chemicals (inhalants), prescription and over-the-counter medicines, and illegal drugs. Marijuana is the illegal drug that teens use most often.

Why do teens abuse drugs and alcohol?

Teens use alcohol and other drugs for many reasons. They may do it because they want to fit in with friends or certain groups. They may also take a drug or drink alcohol because they like the way it makes them feel. Or they may believe that it makes them more grown up. Teens tend to try new things and take risks, and they may take drugs or drink alcohol because it seems exciting.

Teens with family members who have problems with alcohol or other drugs are more likely to have serious substance abuse problems. Also, teens who feel that they are not connected to or valued by their parents are at greater risk. Teens with poor self-esteem or emotional or mental health problems, such as depression, also are at increased risk.

What problems can teen substance abuse cause?

Substance abuse can lead to"

Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=24341912811


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

science: Study shows marijuana increases brain cell growth

Friday, September 5, 2008

A dried flowered bud of the Cannabis sativa plant.Image via Wikipedia

By Juanita King, The Muse (Memorial University of Newfoundland)

ST. JOHN’S, Nfld — Supporters of marijuana may finally have an excuse to smoke weed every day. A recent study in the Journal of Clinical Investigation suggests that smoking pot can make the brain grow.

Though most drugs inhibit the growth of new brain cells, injections of a synthetic cannibinoid have had the opposite effect in mice in a study performed at the University of Saskatchewan. Research on how drugs affect the brain has been critical to addiction treatment, particularly research on the hippocampus.

The hippocampus is an area of the brain essential to memory formation. It is unusual because it grows new neurons over a person’s lifetime. Researchers believe these new cells help to improve memory and fight depression and mood disorders.

Many drugs -— heroin, cocaine, and the more common alcohol and nicotine — inhibit the growth of these new cells. It was thought that marijuana did the same thing, but this new research suggests otherwise.

Neuropsychiatrist Xia Zhang and a team of researchers study how marijuana-like drugs — known collectively as cannabinoids — act on the brain.

The team tested the effects of HU-210, a potent synthetic cannabinoid similar to a group of compounds found in marijuana. The synthetic version is about 100 times as powerful as THC, the high-inducing compound loved by recreational users.

The researchers found that rats treated with HU-210 on a regular basis showed neurogenesis — the growth of new brain cells in the hippocampus. A current hypothesis suggests depression may be triggered when the hippocampus grows insufficient numbers of new brain cells. If true, HU-210 could offer a treatment for such mood disorders by stimulating this growth.

Whether this is true for all cannabinoids remains unclear, as HU-210 is only one of many and the HU-210 in the study is highly purified.

“That does not mean that general use in healthy people is beneficial,” said Memorial psychology professor William McKim. “We need to learn if this happens in humans, whether this is useful in healthy people, and whether THC causes it as well.”

McKim warns that marijuana disrupts memory and cognition. “These effects can be long-lasting after heavy use,” he said. “This makes it difficult to succeed academically if you use it excessively.”

“Occasional light use probably does not have very serious consequences. [But] there is some evidence that marijuana smoke might cause cancer.”

Still, the positive aspects of marijuana are becoming more plentiful as further research is done. McKim says it’s not surprising that THC and compounds like it could have medicinal effects.

“Many have been identified,” he said. “It stimulates appetite in people with AIDS, it is an analgesic, and blocks nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. And it treats the symptoms of glaucoma.”

The research group’s next studies will examine the more unpleasant side of the drug.

"e.Peak (31/10/2005) news: science: Study shows marijuana increases brain cell growth." 6 Sep. 2008 .


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

It's the Recession, Didiot!: UFO Recession Tip 79 - Save Money: Stop Smoking

It's the Recession, Didiot!: UFO Recession Tip 79 - Save Money: Stop Smoking

| Hookah / Sheesha (Shisha) Smoking: Safer than Cigarettes? Haram or Halal?

| Hookah / Sheesha (Shisha) Smoking: Safer than Cigarettes? Haram or Halal?

Pipe Smoking

Pipe Smoking

fshn017bythreelibrasbp2.jpg (JPEG Image, 481x700 pixels) - Scaled (71%)

fshn017bythreelibrasbp2.jpg (JPEG Image, 481x700 pixels) - Scaled (71%)

14 Smoking Accessories that Nobody Should Own

14 Smoking Accessories that Nobody Should Own

97 Reasons to Quit Smoking

The cigarette is the most common method of smo...Image via Wikipedia

97 Reasons to Quit Smoking (Reasons 1-10)

cigarette-stop
(FOTOLIA/ISTOCKPHOTO)
1. You won't have to pay more and more and more and more each year.
Yup, taxes will almost certainly continue to go up. New Jersey, Vermont, and Connecticut are among the states leaning harder on smokers for revenue, but even some tobacco-growing states are beginning to milk the coffin-nail cash cow. Lawmakers' reasoning: There is evidence that price increases cause smokers to reduce consumption. And the medical costs of smoking are astronomical—a huge burden to the states.

2. Really, if you think cigarette prices can't go up much more, you've got Wall Street against you as well as the government.
Addiction—to oil, tobacco, etc.—is a very good thing to bank on. Many on Wall Street remain bullish about Big Tobacco's ability to jack up prices, even if sales drop because of tax increases.

3. You'll be smarter than Goofy.
"No Smoking" is a superb 1951 Disney cartoon depicting the history of tobacco use and, in modern times, Goofy's addiction and attempt to quit (there's a hilarious Mad Men-ish scene of an office full of smokers). It ends with him smoking an exploding cigar as the narrator concludes: "Give the smoker enough rope and he'll hang on to his habit."

goofy-smoking-video
(YOUTUBE.COM)
4. Once you quit, you'll find it more amusing that tobacco soup smells like s**t.
Or at least that's what kids at a Washington state elementary school said when Teens Against Tobacco Use visited their class recently and mixed up a concoction of cigarette ingredients.

brazil-impotence
(SMOKE-FREE.CA)
5. Smoking can cramp your style in the bedroom.
Smoking can affect circulation; with less blood flow to your genitals, arousal for both men and women can be more difficult.

6. Sever yourself from the sordid history of animal testing in smoking research.
Smoking-related cancer researchers have long used animals as test subjects, producing the famous smoking beagles photos from the 1970s, which are still used by antivivisection sites today.

smoking-beagles
(VIOLENCEFREESCIENCE.ORG)




7. You'll sleep better.
Smokers are four times as likely to report feeling unrested after a night's sleep, a Johns Hopkins study found; it seems going through nicotine withdrawal each night can contribute to sleep disturbances.

8. Cool bonuses at work may be in your future.
Employers are increasingly offering incentives—such as gift cards, premium discounts, or cash—to employees who participate in smoking cessation programs.

9. Quitting is a plausible excuse to play computer games.
A recent survey commissioned by online game maker RealNetworks suggests that playing games online can help distract people from smoking.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Addicted to the Internet? Cure it… with Another Addiction!

Example of a copyrighted YouTube video claimed...Image via Wikipedia

The internet’s great, isn’t it! I can’t believe humans survived 200,000 years without YouTube or lolcats. But the internet is addictive! A recent report estimated 10% of Americans were addicted to the internet, wasting precious hours goggling at Google and pretending not to look at porn.

But how to kick the net nerd habit? The only thing to do is replace it with another addiction. I’ve tried out a few alternatives for you.

Gambling: Why spent hours glued to internet poker when you can visit a casino and do the same, but with free cocktails? In the interests of doing my research properly, I headed to Las Vegas to indulge in a week of hedonistic one-arm-bandit compulsion.

Unfortunately I ran out of quarters within the hour and spent the next six days pretending to play the machines with bus tokens so I could get the free booze.

Another of God's lost flock.Religion: Religious addicts who spend all day going door-to-door to preach the Word of the Lord don’t have time to muck about on the net. So why not get hooked on holiness? Who knows what interesting people you’ll meet and cups of tea you’ll be offered by sympathetic old ladies.

Armed with a few stolen copies of Watchtower I roamed the streets looking pious and in need of tea. Result? If you are thinking of becoming a religious zealot a) make sure you can outrun large dogs and b) don’t expect many cups of tea.

Stupid Puzzles: You often see people on the train or driving to work with their head buried in a book of Soduku. They just can’t get enough of writing numbers in boxes! And it’s an addiction that may improve your brain, not mince it all up.

Sadly, not being able to add up severely impeded my enjoyment of this game and I’m still not quite sure what the rules are. Pac Man was a lot easier, wasn’t it?

Awww! Ahhhhh! Ooooooh!Collecting Stuff: Stamps, tea pots, garden gnomes or cock-shaped vegetables - there’s so many things to collect! Some people have to live in their car because they’ve filled their house with so many glass clowns or Royal Wedding plate sets.

I decided to start a collection of panda finger puppets. Unfortunately there are only three panda finger puppet shops in Nova Scotia, so once I’d cleaned them out I was finished. I want eBay back.

Sex: This compulsion should be an attractive prospect for most net addicts, considering how much porn they’ve viewed over the years. However, reliving those steamy internet sex scenes is not easy.

If you don’t have a significant other (and let’s face it, most net addicts either haven’t or forgot about their spouse long ago) where are you going to find all those oiled-up musclemen and hot blonde babes? Not down the Legion on Saturday night, that’s for sure.

I think I’ll stick to my internet addiction for now. At least on the internet I don’t get my pockets emptied or attacked by dogs. And look out for 500 panda finger puppets for sale on eBay soon.

"Addicted to the Internet? Cure it... with Another Addiction! | Tiggyblog: A Cocktail of Fun and Useless Advice." 5 Sep. 2008 .

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The New Science of Addiction: Genetics and the Brain

A human brain showing frontotemporal lobar deg...Image via Wikipedia The New Science of Addiction: Genetics and the Brain: "characterized by changes in the brain
which result in a compulsive desire to use a drug. A combination of many factors including genetics, environment and behavior influence a person's addiction risk, making it an incredibly complicated disease. The new science of addiction considers all of these factors - from biology to family - to unravel the complexities of the addicted brain."

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Addiction

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Addiction: "Addiction is defined as an overuse of any substance that changes the natural chemical balance of the brain. It is basicallygirl_face.jpg agreed upon that addiction encompasses both biological, psychological, and behavioral factors.

At 1800nodrugs.com we believe the best prevention and catalyst to recovery from addiction is education. We understand addiction and we can help you get the tools and information you need to help you or your loved one’s recovery from addition."

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Women Get Drunk, High and Addicted Easier Than Men

SAN YSIDRO, CA - JANUARY 8:  Pedestrians head ...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

By Christopher Wanjek, Special to LiveScience

posted: 17 May 2006 12:27 am ET

Snake oil salesmen used to prey on women with their "medicinal" tonics packing 40-proof alcohol. Mick Jagger sang of "mother's little helper."

A woman's addiction to alcohol, pills and other narcotics has long been a wink-wink topic—one that garners a few smirks, rarely taken seriously. The focus has always been on men, who traditionally have had higher rates of substance abuse.

But now the gender gap is closing. More than 20 million girls and women in the United States abuse drugs and alcohol and 30 million more are addicted to cigarettes, according to a 10-year research effort from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.

The study documents how women, pound-for-pound, not only get more drunk or higher faster then men, but also become addicted more easily. The research results are presented in a new book from CASA called "Women Under the Influence" (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006).

Double shot

The numbers could get worse, warns Susan Foster, CASA's director of policy research and analysis, who directed the research behind the book.

Teenage girls now smoke, drink and abuse drugs as often as teenage boys. For certain drugs, such as prescription painkillers, the abuse rate is higher in girls than boys.

Yet even as the rate of abuse becomes equal, physiological and psychological factors combine to ensure that females are more greatly affected by drugs and alcohol.

According to Foster, each single drink hits a woman like a double. A woman's body contains less water and more fatty tissue—which increases alcohol absorption—compared to a male body. And women have a lower activity level of an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), which breaks down alcohol. Similar biological factors are at work in metabolizing illicit drugs.

Hooked on less

The risk of addiction to alcohol and drugs, including nicotine, is approximately doubled as well. The reason may be hormonal or psychological, according to ongoing research at the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Males and females abuse drugs for different reasons. For example, teenage girls are more likely than boys to abuse substances in order to lose weight, relieve stress or boredom, improve their mood, reduce sexual inhibitions, self-medicate depression, and increase confidence, according to CASA.

"Whereas the substance abuse field has a fairly good understanding of the biological basis of gender differences in susceptibility to alcohol addiction, the research on such differences with regard to narcotic addiction is still in the early stages," Foster told LiveScience. "Women become addicted [to narcotics] faster than men. Our understanding of why this may be the case is more limited."

Foster is calling for more research funding for this neglected area. Similarly, CASA president Joseph Califano said that drug-treatment programs have long had a male-dominated, one-size-fits-all focus and need to better embrace women and their needs. More than 90 percent of American women in need of treatment don't get it, he said.

"Women Get Drunk, High and Addicted Easier Than Men | LiveScience." 5 Sep. 2008 .

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Women Get Drunk, High and Addicted Easier Than Men

By Christopher Wanjek, Special to LiveScience

posted: 17 May 2006 12:27 am ET

Snake oil salesmen used to prey on women with their "medicinal" tonics packing 40-proof alcohol. Mick Jagger sang of "mother's little helper."

A woman's addiction to alcohol, pills and other narcotics has long been a wink-wink topic—one that garners a few smirks, rarely taken seriously. The focus has always been on men, who traditionally have had higher rates of substance abuse.

But now the gender gap is closing. More than 20 million girls and women in the United States abuse drugs and alcohol and 30 million more are addicted to cigarettes, according to a 10-year research effort from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.

The study documents how women, pound-for-pound, not only get more drunk or higher faster then men, but also become addicted more easily. The research results are presented in a new book from CASA called "Women Under the Influence" (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006).

Double shot

The numbers could get worse, warns Susan Foster, CASA's director of policy research and analysis, who directed the research behind the book.

Teenage girls now smoke, drink and abuse drugs as often as teenage boys. For certain drugs, such as prescription painkillers, the abuse rate is higher in girls than boys.

Yet even as the rate of abuse becomes equal, physiological and psychological factors combine to ensure that females are more greatly affected by drugs and alcohol.

According to Foster, each single drink hits a woman like a double. A woman's body contains less water and more fatty tissue—which increases alcohol absorption—compared to a male body. And women have a lower activity level of an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), which breaks down alcohol. Similar biological factors are at work in metabolizing illicit drugs.

Hooked on less

The risk of addiction to alcohol and drugs, including nicotine, is approximately doubled as well. The reason may be hormonal or psychological, according to ongoing research at the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Males and females abuse drugs for different reasons. For example, teenage girls are more likely than boys to abuse substances in order to lose weight, relieve stress or boredom, improve their mood, reduce sexual inhibitions, self-medicate depression, and increase confidence, according to CASA.

"Whereas the substance abuse field has a fairly good understanding of the biological basis of gender differences in susceptibility to alcohol addiction, the research on such differences with regard to narcotic addiction is still in the early stages," Foster told LiveScience. "Women become addicted [to narcotics] faster than men. Our understanding of why this may be the case is more limited."

Foster is calling for more research funding for this neglected area. Similarly, CASA president Joseph Califano said that drug-treatment programs have long had a male-dominated, one-size-fits-all focus and need to better embrace women and their needs. More than 90 percent of American women in need of treatment don't get it, he said.

"Women Get Drunk, High and Addicted Easier Than Men | LiveScience." 5 Sep. 2008 .

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

WHY PEOPLE REALLY TAKE DRUGS

The four possible isomers of LSD. Only LSD is ...Image via Wikipedia

A few "pleasant" effects of some drugs:

ALCOHOL - makes most of us "happy", initially, and creates the illusion of general friendship; others can be aggressive.

TOBACCO
- calms nerves by relieving the craving it has created.

VALIUMS
- remove (numb) the pain and revulsion at the world that we have created.

AMPHETAMINES
- give us energy and intensity of thought.

CANNABIS
- provokes short-term "peace of mind"; relaxation
and thought.

ECSTASY - provokes emotion that people think is joy and love.

L.S.D. - causes pleasure and a magnified appreciation of the awesome immensity of reality.

HEROIN - creates a "shield" or "bubble" that protects one from the "outside world vibes".

from:

"Drugs." Times Online. 5 Sep. 2008. Times Online. 5 Sep. 2008 .



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

How many joints are in an ounce of marijuana?

A dried flowered bud of the Cannabis sativa plant.Image via Wikipedia

The proponents of Question 7 say their initiative legalizes "small amounts" of marijuana. The "small amount" they propose to legalize for individuals 21 and older is one ounce. So how many marijuana cigarettes are there in one ounce of weed? Thirty to 120 marijuana cigarettes per ounce depending on the potency of the marijuana.

The excerpt below is from the book Economics of Cannabis Legalization, written by Dale Gieringer, Ph.D., Coordinator, California NORML (National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws)

“We will define a standard dose of THC to be that contained in the government's own marijuana joints, which NIDA supplies to researchers and selected human subjects. These consist of low-quality 2.5% - 3% potency leaf rolled into cigarette-sized joints of 0.9 grams, yielding a 25 milligram dose of THC. The same dose can be had in a slender one-third or one-quarter gram joint of 10 - 12% sinsemilla. A typical joint has been estimated to weigh about 0.4 grams. Taking this as a standard, we will define a "standard joint" to be 0.4 grams of average-quality 6% buds. Thus an ounce of "standard pot" equals 60 joints, an ounce of 12% sinsemilla 120, and an ounce of government pot only 30 joints.”

"Nevada Says No - How many joints are in an ounce of marijuana?" 4 Sep. 2008 .

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

He Wanted You to Know


"He Wanted You to Know"

smoking kills and as you can see it cost Bryan Lee Curtis his life at age 34
On the day of Bryan's death, June 3, wife Bobbie and son Bryan keep a bedside vigil.
The recent photo of father and son is on the bed. [Times photo: V. Jane Windsor]

"Smoking Kills - Bryan Story - "He wanted you to know"." 4 Sep. 2008 .
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Marijuana and its Meaning for Me

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

By Anonymous
"Marijuana Uses - Dr. Lester Grinspoon's Marijuana Uses." 3 Sep. 2008 .
The author of this piece was, when he wrote it in the late 1990's, a 23-year-old graduate student and artist at a large university in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. He encounters the ocean of mind, first tentatively entering the realm, then embracing its many teachings.

I was twenty years old when I first smoked marijuana. I figured that I had already beaten the statistical odds, that I had jumped over the top of the bell curve, so there would be little harm if I took the plunge. The seed for my long-standing interest in drugs and non-ordinary states was planted early in my life, when I became a fan of Pink Floyd. I read volumes and volumes of literature about this band, particular information related to their enigmatic and tragic founder, Syd Barrett. He was, in the parlance of the day, an "acid casualty." Reading about Pink Floyd I was exposed to a great deal of writing concerning LSD and other psychedelic substances. As a youngster I was especially intrigued that one could ingest a minuscule amount of some simple chemical and have perception and cognition change so dramatically. Years went by and my interests became deeper and broader. When I encountered the writings of Terence McKenna, I simply knew this was the "path" (well, at least part of it) for me. Although to be frank, the thought of "altering my consciousness" was pretty frightening, there was still something drawing me towards psychedelics.

A very understanding friend of mine promised to help me out, but only with a slight qualification. He would procure some LSD for me, but only if I smoked marijuana first. He was NOT trying to push the drug on me. As he explained it, psychedelic states were almost unimaginable for those lacking the experience, but doubly so if one had never before chemically altered their consciousness via any means. The more I thought about it, the more sense his conditions made. I must qualify this by stating that throughout my youth, ingesting marijuana was not something I ever desired to do. Once, when I was in Tangier, Morocco, a young boy walked up to me and said "hashish?" I shot the boy a dirty look and he quickly scuttled away. For much of my life I probably equated it with snorting coke or shooting heroin. It seemed tacky, dangerous, and I just wasn't interested. After openly discussing marijuana with my friend, as well as others who actively smoked it, and after reading some non-political literature on the matter (such as that of Dr. Grinspoon) I realized my perception of marijuana was slightly askew, that this was not just another "demon drug," but a relatively safe plant, if used properly. So, one night I drove over to my friend's house with a pillow and a change of clothes, and we smoked marijuana.

Nothing happened that night. I was told to expect this, so I grudgingly accepted my friend's offer to try it again. Well, there was no mistaking it this time around. Needless to say, my second experience with marijuana got me high for the first time in my life, and I experienced it as a beautiful sensation, touching on the magical. I felt as though I was melting into not only whatever object I happened to be touching, but the environment as well. We were listening to the Harmonic Chant of David Hykes & The Harmonic Choir, and as I melted into the seemingly eternal flights of melody, I felt as though I had transcended time. It was amazing. The next morning I felt great, and we spent the day walking around the Mall in Washington, DC (sober), visiting many of the museums of the Smithsonian.

For the next year or so, I used marijuana approximately once a month, perhaps less. I still abstained from alcohol and tobacco, and I had yet to take the plunge with psychedelics. "Turning on" with marijuana made me hyper-aware of the different brain states I could potentially experience with different chemicals, and I realized I was still not ready for psychedelics. Eventually a time came when I felt ready to immerse myself in the ocean of mind, and when my first psychedelic experience was over with I graciously thanked my friend for his wisdom.

Over the years I've used marijuana, different patterns have come and gone. At times I would smoke it two or three times a month. At other times maybe once every two or three months. There were periods of three to four months during which I simply didn't smoke it. Period. I've had such a rich variety of experiences with marijuana that I could never fully describe them all.

Marijuana opened me up to the realm of the mind, of deeply experiencing and exploring the dimensions of consciousness available to me. In that regard, it has, with differing degrees of directness, led me into explorations of transpersonal psychology, mysticism, Sufism, shamanism, bodywork, and a host of other experiential/philosophical pursuits. When I got over the novelty of being stoned, I soon explored its effects more fully. I was amazed at what I found. Initially I would explore internal imagery, sharpening my visualization skills. Sometimes I would concentrate on feeling music more deeply. Other times I would simply think about the emotional and intellectual reactions of certain people to certain phenomena, particularly those reactions I found difficult to understand. Whilst stoned, I found it easier to put myself in the place of others. I could understand how people might believe any number of seemingly "irrational" or dense, impenetrable ideas. Marijuana opened me up to the existence of so many different views of the world, views I need not share to fathom and empathize with. I worked with my own feelings of sensuality/sexuality. I explored techniques of focusing my mind. I would meditate (in the Western, pre-Buddhist use of the word) upon religious/spiritual matters, clarifying things that seemed to make little to no sense in "sober" states of mind. How might this work? I don't know, but I have one idea that I often espouse. Our normal state of awareness is good for certain tasks, not for others. For example, one typically does not produce works of art in the same state of awareness that we use when driving about in our cars; an artist is instead focused inward, and on the outward projection of his/her internal state. In much the same way, such an internally-oriented state would be of little value in a sexual experience, in which humans exchange energy, moving and flowing together in a state of emotional and physical sympathy. What I find marijuana does is to shift the loci of my attention away from the mundane experiences and concerns that I, as an often automaton-like human, find myself dwelling on a moment-to-moment or daily basis. Instead, my mind is centered on matters that touch more on the extraordinary, those topics and experiences that are perhaps better left unexplored while driving along I-95 or working out my finances for the year. Those that view all of this as simply drug-induced illusions are sadly blind.

The greatest thing to come out of all of this is that I found these "stoned" experiences aren't as state-dependent as I initially believed. In the wake of my introduction and exploration of "stoned-mind awareness" I find that my appreciation for sensuality, aesthetics, and philosophy in "normal waking consciousness" (to quote James) has deepened greatly, almost to the point that I feel that the pre-drugs "me" was noticeably worse-off.

Some may wonder how my skills of empathy could possibly be improved by "smoking dope." Let me give you one recent example. For a period of a few months I found myself dwelling on religion-oriented topics, both stoned and otherwise. One night, in the midst of a marijuana-induced reverie, I got to thinking about the real person we call Jesus. These days, we think of him as some ethereal figure in some far off land shrouded in the historical mists of time. Just as then, people still believe that he was the Messiah, that he was the savior of mankind, that "in the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, the Word was God," and that Jesus was, quite literally, the "Word made flesh." I found myself imagining that at one time in history, this Jesus character was a living, breathing human like myself. Intellectually, I already knew this, but I increasingly felt as though I might be capable of fathoming what his disciples and apostles felt. His followers were in his presence, they looked into his eyes and heard his words and believed that they were looking at God. It was only in this state of consciousness that I could truly imagine what it might have been like to be in the presence of the this man and truly believe, and by extension, possibly experience what so many people on Earth experience during moments of great religious feeling and devotion. While I don't subscribe to the tenets of Christianity proper, I have come to understand how real it can all seem for people, and just how little such experiences are taken into account by those skeptics and atheists who argue against what they see as irrational beliefs. In this case, being stoned allowed my mind to circumvent its ordinarily non-religious bent, and if only for a few moments, come to know what the truly religious feel. As a consequence, I now offer this story (at least the aspect of Jesus as a man, and people looking into his eyes and believing in him) to people perplexed by religious belief in general, or Christianity in specific.

I hope this hasn't been too lengthy. I could write for days about marijuana, but I don't want to seem like a "drug preacher" or a "dope fiend." I hope it is apparent that marijuana has played a major role in my personal and intellectual development in the last few years, and this role has been nothing but positive (I now vaporize it, rather than smoke it, so I no longer ingest any carcinogens!). I thank God (or whatever force, conscious or not, responsible for existence) for the plant-human interaction known as marijuana intoxication.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]