8 ms·

Years ago I interacted with hippies openly selling commercial-looking individually wrapped chocolates containing psilocybin in Golden Gate Park. This is San Fr

Years ago I interacted with hippies openly selling commercial-looking individually wrapped chocolates containing psilocybin in Golden Gate Park. This is San Francisco we're talking about, psychedelics already weren't a priority for the police in any practical sense.

hemloc_io 4y ago
hah still a thing, and now they do delivery and have punchcards. Supposedly one of them works with a prof at Berkeley to make their product
- lalos 4y ago
  That's the premise of Breaking Bad, but with a twist.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - YesWeWill 4y ago
- briffle 4y ago
  A line that is repeated by any LSD dealer in any college town...
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Because it's often true, and was universally true for late-Xers, early-Millennials? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Leonard_Pickard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Leonard_Pickard Back then (the 90s), LSD was $2/hit.
    - cammikebrown 4y ago
      The wholesale price of LSD is currently under $2/hit.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        That was retail in the 90s, but considering inflation that sounds like we're finally getting back to Pickard pricing. My local sources run an order of magnitude higher. edit, for anyone curious about 90s wholesale: "Government informant Skinner testified that Petaluma Al and the largest wholesale customers of Pickard paid 29 cents per 100 µg dose, which would put the cost at around $2.97 million for a kilogram of LSD." edit: I'm annoyed by the math used in this quote. They couldn't say $2.9 million or "around" $3 million?
        chasd00 4y ago
        A kg of pure lsd would be a site to behold. I don’t know how you could even handle it in any semi-safe way.
        djhn 4y ago
        Chemistry and LSD newbie question: what would make it unsafe?
        xvedejas 4y ago
        LSD is extremely potent at small quantities (dozens of micrograms); exposure to even a small fraction of this (a few grams, say) could be enough to put someone into a non-responsive state for a few days. I don't think it'd cause permanent damage, but still not something to underestimate.
        kirsebaer 4y ago
        There are reports in medical journals of people accidentally taking hundreds of doses of LSD, and they all were sober within 24 hours.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
da39a3ee 4y ago
> This is San Francisco we're talking about, psychedelics already weren't a priority for the police in any practical sense. Whenever someone says something like that, you know they don't have much experience trying to get hold of illegal drugs! It's rarely easy, and often falls through.
- pengaru 4y ago
  > Whenever someone says something like that, you know they don't have much experience trying to get hold of illegal drugs! It's rarely easy, and often falls through. As this is a public record, I'm in total agreement with you. I have zero experience acquiring illegal drugs, none. To not distinguish psychedelics from "illegal drugs" however, especially in the context of San Francisco, suggests to me you don't have much experience with the city.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    Same totally in agreement. I have never in my life acquired any illegal drugs. I have absolutely no idea if weed, molly and lsd are regularly advertised on WhatsApp here and wouldn’t considered the complexity as akin to ordering on Uber Eats.
- sva_ 4y ago
  I think if you can get some cryptocurrency and have access to the internet using Tor, it is incredibly easy. In fact I'd say, DO NOT buy acid on the street. If you live in the EU, you can even acquire a legit derivative legally on the 'clearnet'.
  - tsol 4y ago
    Sure, but darknet markets have a different sort of risk. From what I understand they can still intercept it and charge you for it.
    - glennvtx 4y ago
      In the US, i think to intercept mail via USPS they must have a warrant, Then they send a postal inspector to deliver it. Don't accept packages of drugs from a postman hand delivering it, and you should be good?
throwaway292939 4y ago
True, but to many, the destigmatization and the recognition of practical uses is still important.
- otherme123 4y ago
  It's super important because it's really hard to do research with controlled substances. E.g. MDMA was a widely used substance in psychoterapy before 1980 (they used it to "open" patients before sessions), but it got banned and almost nobody could carry on with their research. Without research, you cannot claim practical uses and be taken seriously. And pharmas are not interested in spending on some product that they can't market anyway.
  - flakeoil 4y ago
    > It's super important because it's really hard to do research with controlled substances. > And pharmas are not interested in spending on some product that they can't market anyway What do you mean? That pharma companies only develop drugs that don't require prescriptions? As far as I know at least that's kind of their main business.
    - otherme123 4y ago
      My text was unclear. Lets suppose some pharma researchs MDMA, and finds that it is useful against depression. With any other non controlled substance, they could mass market it in 5 years. With MDMA it would be delayed, and then delayed a bit more, and then banned in some places, and then only available in some specific cases where other substances doesn't work. Just look at the history of ketamine: known since 1970, it's controlled until 2000's when finally is found to work better than anything against depression. But even today it isn't marketed, unlike hundreds of antidepressants known to have worse secondary effects and be less effective. Reason? Some people might have fun with it.
      - flakeoil 4y ago
        I don't understand your argument. Most active ingredients/medicines/chemicals that have some sort of effect on people (good or bad) are more or less controlled. Their are called medicines (drugs) and are under subscription (also during research and clinical trials they are under strict control). You can think cancer medicine, HIV medicine, insulin, whatever. Just because some medicines have kind of happy or fun or hallucinating effects don't make them more or less controlled. And your argument about MDMA, it's already a developed medicine which is available under subscription. Why do you talk about delays? And most medicines take more than 5 years to develop and release to market (also those without funny side effects sought after by drug abusers). It's funny how you talk about ketamine being not 'marketed'. Why should a drug be marketed? It's a medical doctor who should subscribe it to patients he sees has a need for it. For sure medical companies might market it to doctors, but overall drugs should not be 'marketed'. Just see the issue with Purdue Pharma and the opioid crisis in the US.
colordrops 4y ago
Psilocybin chocolates are a great way to consume the substance, but they are a bad f'n idea in my opinion. A lot of the people that get a hold of them are not always in a vigilant state, and one of these could easily get into the hands of a child. They just look like a normal chocolate.
- yurishimo 4y ago
  It’s not really any different from cannabis though, right? Unlike cannabis, you can’t smoke it, so ingestion is an obvious choice. I suppose pills could be an answer but kids eat pills all the time too. Granted, perhaps less enticing than chocolates but still a problem. The better option would be to forgo purchase of these substances until you're ready to consume them. Legalization makes this a reality. I could go to the store, buy the drugs, then drive straight home and consume them in a safe environment. The prohibition we have currently is what tempts people to stock up all at once and ultimately leads to higher risks for children finding/consuming them while mommy and daddy are at work.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    I'm not suggesting a prohibition of psilocybin whether in chocolate or not. I'm only saying that the delivery mechanism is a bit irresponsible, kinda like strawberry nicotine vapes. Should not be illegal though.
    - gregoryl 4y ago
      Those fancy looking craft beer cans certainly remind me of soda.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    Psilocybin is quite different from cannabis!
    - yurishimo 4y ago
      Definitely, I meant that they were similar in regards to packaging, marketing, and distribution in our quasi-legal current system.
latchkey 4y ago
Those chocolates were created by a good friend of mine. He lived near the park. His name was Marcello. Super interesting guy who had a huge heart. He had a Harley motorcycle that he accidentally dropped while moving it for street cleaning, and injured his back trying to pick up. Sadly, after a very risky surgery to fix the injury, that was completely botched, he got addicted to oxycontin and eventually took his life. There are a lot more stories there, but I'll leave it as that for now. RIP Marcello.

hemloc_io 4y ago

hah still a thing, and now they do delivery and have punchcards. Supposedly one of them works with a prof at Berkeley to make their product

lalos 4y ago
That's the premise of Breaking Bad, but with a twist.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- YesWeWill 4y ago
briffle 4y ago
A line that is repeated by any LSD dealer in any college town...
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Because it's often true, and was universally true for late-Xers, early-Millennials? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Leonard_Pickard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Leonard_Pickard Back then (the 90s), LSD was $2/hit.
  - cammikebrown 4y ago
    The wholesale price of LSD is currently under $2/hit.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      That was retail in the 90s, but considering inflation that sounds like we're finally getting back to Pickard pricing. My local sources run an order of magnitude higher. edit, for anyone curious about 90s wholesale: "Government informant Skinner testified that Petaluma Al and the largest wholesale customers of Pickard paid 29 cents per 100 µg dose, which would put the cost at around $2.97 million for a kilogram of LSD." edit: I'm annoyed by the math used in this quote. They couldn't say $2.9 million or "around" $3 million?
      - chasd00 4y ago
        A kg of pure lsd would be a site to behold. I don’t know how you could even handle it in any semi-safe way.
        djhn 4y ago
        Chemistry and LSD newbie question: what would make it unsafe?
        xvedejas 4y ago
        LSD is extremely potent at small quantities (dozens of micrograms); exposure to even a small fraction of this (a few grams, say) could be enough to put someone into a non-responsive state for a few days. I don't think it'd cause permanent damage, but still not something to underestimate.
        kirsebaer 4y ago
        There are reports in medical journals of people accidentally taking hundreds of doses of LSD, and they all were sober within 24 hours.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

da39a3ee 4y ago

> This is San Francisco we're talking about, psychedelics already weren't a priority for the police in any practical sense. Whenever someone says something like that, you know they don't have much experience trying to get hold of illegal drugs! It's rarely easy, and often falls through.

pengaru 4y ago
> Whenever someone says something like that, you know they don't have much experience trying to get hold of illegal drugs! It's rarely easy, and often falls through. As this is a public record, I'm in total agreement with you. I have zero experience acquiring illegal drugs, none. To not distinguish psychedelics from "illegal drugs" however, especially in the context of San Francisco, suggests to me you don't have much experience with the city.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  Same totally in agreement. I have never in my life acquired any illegal drugs. I have absolutely no idea if weed, molly and lsd are regularly advertised on WhatsApp here and wouldn’t considered the complexity as akin to ordering on Uber Eats.
sva_ 4y ago
I think if you can get some cryptocurrency and have access to the internet using Tor, it is incredibly easy. In fact I'd say, DO NOT buy acid on the street. If you live in the EU, you can even acquire a legit derivative legally on the 'clearnet'.
- tsol 4y ago
  Sure, but darknet markets have a different sort of risk. From what I understand they can still intercept it and charge you for it.
  - glennvtx 4y ago
    In the US, i think to intercept mail via USPS they must have a warrant, Then they send a postal inspector to deliver it. Don't accept packages of drugs from a postman hand delivering it, and you should be good?

throwaway292939 4y ago

True, but to many, the destigmatization and the recognition of practical uses is still important.

otherme123 4y ago
It's super important because it's really hard to do research with controlled substances. E.g. MDMA was a widely used substance in psychoterapy before 1980 (they used it to "open" patients before sessions), but it got banned and almost nobody could carry on with their research. Without research, you cannot claim practical uses and be taken seriously. And pharmas are not interested in spending on some product that they can't market anyway.
- flakeoil 4y ago
  > It's super important because it's really hard to do research with controlled substances. > And pharmas are not interested in spending on some product that they can't market anyway What do you mean? That pharma companies only develop drugs that don't require prescriptions? As far as I know at least that's kind of their main business.
  - otherme123 4y ago
    My text was unclear. Lets suppose some pharma researchs MDMA, and finds that it is useful against depression. With any other non controlled substance, they could mass market it in 5 years. With MDMA it would be delayed, and then delayed a bit more, and then banned in some places, and then only available in some specific cases where other substances doesn't work. Just look at the history of ketamine: known since 1970, it's controlled until 2000's when finally is found to work better than anything against depression. But even today it isn't marketed, unlike hundreds of antidepressants known to have worse secondary effects and be less effective. Reason? Some people might have fun with it.
    - flakeoil 4y ago
      I don't understand your argument. Most active ingredients/medicines/chemicals that have some sort of effect on people (good or bad) are more or less controlled. Their are called medicines (drugs) and are under subscription (also during research and clinical trials they are under strict control). You can think cancer medicine, HIV medicine, insulin, whatever. Just because some medicines have kind of happy or fun or hallucinating effects don't make them more or less controlled. And your argument about MDMA, it's already a developed medicine which is available under subscription. Why do you talk about delays? And most medicines take more than 5 years to develop and release to market (also those without funny side effects sought after by drug abusers). It's funny how you talk about ketamine being not 'marketed'. Why should a drug be marketed? It's a medical doctor who should subscribe it to patients he sees has a need for it. For sure medical companies might market it to doctors, but overall drugs should not be 'marketed'. Just see the issue with Purdue Pharma and the opioid crisis in the US.

colordrops 4y ago

Psilocybin chocolates are a great way to consume the substance, but they are a bad f'n idea in my opinion. A lot of the people that get a hold of them are not always in a vigilant state, and one of these could easily get into the hands of a child. They just look like a normal chocolate.

yurishimo 4y ago
It’s not really any different from cannabis though, right? Unlike cannabis, you can’t smoke it, so ingestion is an obvious choice. I suppose pills could be an answer but kids eat pills all the time too. Granted, perhaps less enticing than chocolates but still a problem. The better option would be to forgo purchase of these substances until you're ready to consume them. Legalization makes this a reality. I could go to the store, buy the drugs, then drive straight home and consume them in a safe environment. The prohibition we have currently is what tempts people to stock up all at once and ultimately leads to higher risks for children finding/consuming them while mommy and daddy are at work.
- colordrops 4y ago
  I'm not suggesting a prohibition of psilocybin whether in chocolate or not. I'm only saying that the delivery mechanism is a bit irresponsible, kinda like strawberry nicotine vapes. Should not be illegal though.
  - gregoryl 4y ago
    Those fancy looking craft beer cans certainly remind me of soda.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Psilocybin is quite different from cannabis!
  - yurishimo 4y ago
    Definitely, I meant that they were similar in regards to packaging, marketing, and distribution in our quasi-legal current system.

latchkey 4y ago

Those chocolates were created by a good friend of mine. He lived near the park. His name was Marcello. Super interesting guy who had a huge heart. He had a Harley motorcycle that he accidentally dropped while moving it for street cleaning, and injured his back trying to pick up. Sadly, after a very risky surgery to fix the injury, that was completely botched, he got addicted to oxycontin and eventually took his life. There are a lot more stories there, but I'll leave it as that for now. RIP Marcello.