Extract from CARY GRANT - THE LONELY HEART
By Charles Higham and Roy Moseley

.....And it was during Houseboat that he began to experiment with lysergic acid, or LSD. It is possible that Cary may have been aware of LSD as the so-called "Truth Drug" employed by both British and American military intelligence men in order to obtain information from prisoners. The effect of lysergic acid was to remove inhibitions and to release the unconcious mind; the drug was used in cases of sexual impotence. It had a deeper and more lasting effect than hypnosis, emphasising every aspect of the human mind to an extraordinary degree. The good and bad elements in the psyche were unleashed, in sessions that made the subject see colours and smell scents in a way that was not possible in normal conditions. The memory chain was opened up, often with painful consequences.

At least this is Cary Grants take on the stuff.

As someone who has, over the years, dabbled here and there I'd have to agree. I read this story in a newspaper and thought to myself: "was a study required to find this out?" Tim Leary found he could "cure" homosexuality, alcoholism, criminality and a host of other psychological hang-ups through LSD based therapy. He also realised that, improperly used by the government, it had the potential to be a mind control agent. Leary believed it should be out in the open so that the state couldn't spoil what was a real opportunity for progress.

Instead, it was banned, poor quality stuff was produced in garages and was taken in the wrong conditions leading to bad trips and culminating in the constant drug wars and organised crime we have suffered since.

I was in California in the late 60s and saw some really bad trips. The stuff really scared the crap outta me so I have no personal experience. While I've heard storys going either way, the bad stuff can effect you for your entire life and never goes away. Cant imagine wanting to take that kind of chance. jmo

In Leary's estimation, the most important points were set (yourself, psychology), setting (where you do it) and the LSD itself; taking care of these points should negate the problem of bad trips. Also doing it with people you maybe have issues with is not a good idea.

Where I live weekends are simply a sequence of drunken violent episodes. That's what alcohol does. That's why they tax it and produce it in such massive quantities; to keep us all stupid and hating each other. I sometimes wish that good acid would just appear on the scene again but I'm not holding my breath.

C'mon ZZ, don't you want to be cured?

Lol.

Great articles, Slush.

Those CIA nitwits were unbelievable.


Regarding the original post, I definitely don't pay too much attention to ratings of this sort by health agencies. Of course they are right that alcohol and cigs are more harmful than LSD (at least physically speaking), but classifying drugs in numerical order as to level of harmfulness is misleading.

For instance, I don't think marijuana is more harmful than ecstasy, but on their list it is.

You can't really compare substances like ecstasy to herb, it's like apples and oranges.

That's why I put the word "cured" in parenthesis. The people who wanted treatment were obviously guilty about their homosexuality or something. Of course I don't think homosexuals need cured but what if they do?




Don't you think it's interesting that the government employ an independent scientist and then, when he says stuff they don't like, they sack him. It wasn't just him; other scientists were part of advisory group and their work was scientifically sound.

Nutt was on TV last night and he said that the government were judging people who take drugs on a moral basis and and also that they were ignoring the scientific evidence. The last statement in the article kind of proves this.

Scientists rebel at drug czar, David Nutt, sacking

The head of Britain’s leading medical research organisation rounded on the government yesterday for sacking its principal drugs adviser.

Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said scientists must be allowed to give “unfettered advice without the fear of reprisal”.

His criticism followed the abrupt dismissal of David Nutt on Friday. This weekend Nutt said many of his colleagues on the advisory council on the misuse of drugs, which he chaired, could resign in protest. “I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them stepped down,” he said. “Maybe all of them will.”

Nutt suspects he is the victim of a Downing Street plot to oust him and said Gordon Brown was “politically terrified” of his committee’s advice to downgrade classification of the drug ecstasy. He claimed No 10 had repeatedly briefed against his proposals to bring in lesser penalties for the possession of cannabis.

Nutt said he had been sacked for telling the public the truth about drugs. “I’m extremely disappointed that the government isn’t prepared to have a mature and robust discussion about the drugs issue,” he said.

Nutt was sacked as head of the council after claiming in an academic article that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than some illegal drugs. He has also criticised Brown’s decision to upgrade cannabis to a class B drug, imposing a penalty of five years in prison for users.

Alan Johnson, the home secretary, wrote to Nutt on Friday, saying his views were creating public confusion and relieved him of his post. He said he had lost confidence in Nutt’s ability to give impartial advice.

Nutt, however, said: “It seemed an unnecessarily heavy-handed response. Scientists should be challenging. But obviously he didn’t feel like being challenged.”

The affair has provoked outrage among scientists. Borysiewicz said: “We wholeheartedly defend academic freedom and the need for scientists to present findings based on sound research.

“It is crucial that UK policy is based on evidence and that scientists are able to offer unfettered advice without fear of reprisal. This principle should be the backbone of scientific engagement with government.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 898197.ece