3 ms·

I wasn't saying the CIA was it's discoverer, but rather it is the one that pushed LSD as part of the counter-culture movement of the 60's, which included experi

I wasn't saying the CIA was it's discoverer, but rather it is the one that pushed LSD as part of the counter-culture movement of the 60's, which included experimentation on people (often without them knowing) in mkultra/artichoke programs and more. A quote from Timothy Leary: "I give the CIA total credit for sponsoring and initiating the entire conciousness movemenet, counter-culture events of the 1960's." As for why synthetics are dangerous, I think there is a thesis paper waiting to happen on that. Mostly because I don't think we fully understand the effects in total of some drugs. For example, I had friends the VA was trying to put on synthetic THC... but every single one of them said it was horrible, and I came to the conclusion that THC(a/b) alone is bad and that it's the natural combination of it and the other 300+ cannabinoids, including CBD, that really show promising medical benefits.

Nomentatus 8y ago
Usually synthetic forms of any molecule are dangerous or have side effects the natural form doesn't because both the left and right-hand mirror forms of the molecule are present, in equal quantities, in the synthetic product. It's only recently that we've been able to separate and discard one form to create synthetics that are of only one-handedness. A new, better zyrtec (drug for allergies) that's come on the market in the last couple of years is one example. https://www.famousscientists.org/two-centuries-of-right-and-left-handed-molecules/ https://www.famousscientists.org/two-centuries-of-right-and-... This is why synthetic perfumes are so extraordinarily dangerous for people with asthma, and cause several times as many deaths each year in Isreal as terrorism does, but natural scents are almost always fine. (It is possible to have dangerous allergic reactions to natural scents, too, causing severe edema and death, but this is far more rare.) Only tobacco is close to the same level of risk for asthmatics. Of course, other forms of contamination are also possible, not to mention that other chemicals in the natural plant may be modifying the effect or compensating for side effects.
- Jefro118 8y ago
  I'm still unconvinced that LSD itself is more dangerous than natural alternatives (which is not a direct reply to you), but this is really interesting. I had no idea that chirality had such a significant impact on how dangerous a molecule is.

Nomentatus 8y ago

Usually synthetic forms of any molecule are dangerous or have side effects the natural form doesn't because both the left and right-hand mirror forms of the molecule are present, in equal quantities, in the synthetic product. It's only recently that we've been able to separate and discard one form to create synthetics that are of only one-handedness. A new, better zyrtec (drug for allergies) that's come on the market in the last couple of years is one example. https://www.famousscientists.org/two-centuries-of-right-and-left-handed-molecules/ https://www.famousscientists.org/two-centuries-of-right-and-... This is why synthetic perfumes are so extraordinarily dangerous for people with asthma, and cause several times as many deaths each year in Isreal as terrorism does, but natural scents are almost always fine. (It is possible to have dangerous allergic reactions to natural scents, too, causing severe edema and death, but this is far more rare.) Only tobacco is close to the same level of risk for asthmatics. Of course, other forms of contamination are also possible, not to mention that other chemicals in the natural plant may be modifying the effect or compensating for side effects.

Jefro118 8y ago
I'm still unconvinced that LSD itself is more dangerous than natural alternatives (which is not a direct reply to you), but this is really interesting. I had no idea that chirality had such a significant impact on how dangerous a molecule is.