5 ms·

I've never found any interest in taking anything stronger than an occasional beer but as a former chemist I find the research into these types of drugs fascinat

I've never found any interest in taking anything stronger than an occasional beer but as a former chemist I find the research into these types of drugs fascinating. We really do need to look into areas that might be highly illegal if for no reason other than to learn how the brain works.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
It's hard, though. Many chemists have accidentally killed themselves with experimentation, because there's no way to really know the results of your experiments without testing it on someone.
- Fuzzwah 12y ago
  [citation needed]
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Check out the history of LSD. It almost wasn't invented. They tested it on animals, and noticed "some level of disturbance" or some such, but nobody had any clue what the effects were, and nobody really cared. Then someone decided to try it on themselves. The only reason that was able to happen is because the legal and ethical restrictions were looser than they are today. In the meantime, several other such experiments have ended with the deaths of the chemists who decided to self-experiment. I remember reading about several specific chemists. I'll try to find them. Maybe someone else can point them out while I look. EDIT: I'm wrong.
    - Alex3917 12y ago
      To the best of my knowledge there haven't been any deaths among chemists bioassaying new compounds for psychoactive potential. This isn't surprising, considering the vast majority of the 'new' research chemicals coming onto the market were first synthesized by the same 5 or 10, all of whom were/are very cautious and well educated. The closest I've heard of is the grad student who gave himself Parkinsons and later died while trying to make MPPP, but that was because he unknowingly messed up the synthesis and not because he was purposely experimenting with some new molecule.
      - lol123456 12y ago
        An alcohol maker doesn't have to be an alcoholic. More alcoholics die everyday than alcohol makers measured by numbers and percentages. 1 alcohol maker can probably support 1000 drunks everyday. The maker doesn't have to drink, just taste a tiny bit for quality assurance. In the same vein the chemists can never know about interaction effects.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - krick 12y ago
      AFAIK, Hoffman didn't really "decide to try it on himself", but accidentally got some dose through his skin because of working without gloves and felt that something is not right. I don't remember where I got that — I guess it was his autobiography or something.
      - sehr 12y ago
        Can you imagine that bike ride home? Dude must have some mental fortitude. Basically took a thumbprint and walked it off
        nemo1618 12y ago
        Hoffman's "Bicycle Day" dose was 0.25mg[1], whereas the mythical "thumbprint" dose is upwards of 1mg (perhaps substantially more)[2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lysergic_acid_diethylamide#.22Bicycle_Day.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lysergic_acid_diethy... [2] http://insanebraintrain.blogspot.com/2011/07/massive-dosing-lsd-thumbprint.html http://insanebraintrain.blogspot.com/2011/07/massive-dosing-...
        d23 12y ago
        Actually, I read the excerpt from a talk once that argued it was extremely unlikely that he actually ingested the LSD. It has some pretty interesting arguments: https://www.erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindstates4_nichols.shtml https://www.erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindst...
      - sillysaurus3 12y ago
        You're absolutely right. I screwed up in my recollection of that. The experiment wasn't intentional. It may be true that the legal restrictions were looser back then, but it had nothing to do with the discovery of LSD. My bad. It's interesting to realize that it did require human experimentation in order to discover, though. But maybe I'm flat out wrong about chemists dying through self-experimentation. Regardless, I'll start re-checking my sources before saying anything.
        12y ago
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Well, Francis Bacon died of pneumonia, contracted while stuffing snow into a chicken as an experiment in refrigeration. It doesn't exactly count as he was experimenting on the chicken rather than himself, but it does sound as though drugs may have been involved.
protomyth 12y ago
I dearly wish that in all the MJ legalization that some company would start extracting the chemical pain reliever and the appetite stimulant. We reduced smoking at it would be nice to have these in other forms.
- researcher88 12y ago
  You can vaporize it or eat it for a similar (but different) effect. For treating pain, nausea and stimulating appetite, I am fine with marijuana. I've taken nausea medication, all of which stop working eventually. I fear that a dervived compound could be the same and could have the same problems Marinol did. I am all for research but for people suffering, I think they should be able to use marijuana if they want. There are 66 cannabinoids and 480 known compounds in marijuana. It's hard to know exactly what is happening. I do support research for THC+CBD oil treatments to fight cancer cells. But if you are suffering through radiation or chemo, I would much rather have the full spectrum of marijuana to deal with it.
- idiot900 12y ago
  Already been done: http://www.marinol.com/ http://www.marinol.com/
- philwelch 12y ago
  The problem is that, if you're using it as an anti-nausea drug, you really don't want to take a pill that you're just going to throw up again! You want another method of intake. And it turns out that vaporization is not only better for cannabis but tobacco as well, hence the e-cigarette craze.
  - krrrh 12y ago
    E-cigarettes vaporize nicotine, not tobacco.
    - philwelch 12y ago
      Which is derived from tobacco, but ok. (Cannabis vaporizers tend to use hash oil.)

sillysaurus3 12y ago

It's hard, though. Many chemists have accidentally killed themselves with experimentation, because there's no way to really know the results of your experiments without testing it on someone.

Fuzzwah 12y ago
[citation needed]
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Check out the history of LSD. It almost wasn't invented. They tested it on animals, and noticed "some level of disturbance" or some such, but nobody had any clue what the effects were, and nobody really cared. Then someone decided to try it on themselves. The only reason that was able to happen is because the legal and ethical restrictions were looser than they are today. In the meantime, several other such experiments have ended with the deaths of the chemists who decided to self-experiment. I remember reading about several specific chemists. I'll try to find them. Maybe someone else can point them out while I look. EDIT: I'm wrong.
  - Alex3917 12y ago
    To the best of my knowledge there haven't been any deaths among chemists bioassaying new compounds for psychoactive potential. This isn't surprising, considering the vast majority of the 'new' research chemicals coming onto the market were first synthesized by the same 5 or 10, all of whom were/are very cautious and well educated. The closest I've heard of is the grad student who gave himself Parkinsons and later died while trying to make MPPP, but that was because he unknowingly messed up the synthesis and not because he was purposely experimenting with some new molecule.
    - lol123456 12y ago
      An alcohol maker doesn't have to be an alcoholic. More alcoholics die everyday than alcohol makers measured by numbers and percentages. 1 alcohol maker can probably support 1000 drunks everyday. The maker doesn't have to drink, just taste a tiny bit for quality assurance. In the same vein the chemists can never know about interaction effects.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - krick 12y ago
    AFAIK, Hoffman didn't really "decide to try it on himself", but accidentally got some dose through his skin because of working without gloves and felt that something is not right. I don't remember where I got that — I guess it was his autobiography or something.
    - sehr 12y ago
      Can you imagine that bike ride home? Dude must have some mental fortitude. Basically took a thumbprint and walked it off
      - nemo1618 12y ago
        Hoffman's "Bicycle Day" dose was 0.25mg[1], whereas the mythical "thumbprint" dose is upwards of 1mg (perhaps substantially more)[2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lysergic_acid_diethylamide#.22Bicycle_Day.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lysergic_acid_diethy... [2] http://insanebraintrain.blogspot.com/2011/07/massive-dosing-lsd-thumbprint.html http://insanebraintrain.blogspot.com/2011/07/massive-dosing-...
      - d23 12y ago
        Actually, I read the excerpt from a talk once that argued it was extremely unlikely that he actually ingested the LSD. It has some pretty interesting arguments: https://www.erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindstates4_nichols.shtml https://www.erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindst...
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      You're absolutely right. I screwed up in my recollection of that. The experiment wasn't intentional. It may be true that the legal restrictions were looser back then, but it had nothing to do with the discovery of LSD. My bad. It's interesting to realize that it did require human experimentation in order to discover, though. But maybe I'm flat out wrong about chemists dying through self-experimentation. Regardless, I'll start re-checking my sources before saying anything.
      - 12y ago
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Well, Francis Bacon died of pneumonia, contracted while stuffing snow into a chicken as an experiment in refrigeration. It doesn't exactly count as he was experimenting on the chicken rather than himself, but it does sound as though drugs may have been involved.

protomyth 12y ago

I dearly wish that in all the MJ legalization that some company would start extracting the chemical pain reliever and the appetite stimulant. We reduced smoking at it would be nice to have these in other forms.

researcher88 12y ago
You can vaporize it or eat it for a similar (but different) effect. For treating pain, nausea and stimulating appetite, I am fine with marijuana. I've taken nausea medication, all of which stop working eventually. I fear that a dervived compound could be the same and could have the same problems Marinol did. I am all for research but for people suffering, I think they should be able to use marijuana if they want. There are 66 cannabinoids and 480 known compounds in marijuana. It's hard to know exactly what is happening. I do support research for THC+CBD oil treatments to fight cancer cells. But if you are suffering through radiation or chemo, I would much rather have the full spectrum of marijuana to deal with it.
idiot900 12y ago
Already been done: http://www.marinol.com/ http://www.marinol.com/
philwelch 12y ago
The problem is that, if you're using it as an anti-nausea drug, you really don't want to take a pill that you're just going to throw up again! You want another method of intake. And it turns out that vaporization is not only better for cannabis but tobacco as well, hence the e-cigarette craze.
- krrrh 12y ago
  E-cigarettes vaporize nicotine, not tobacco.
  - philwelch 12y ago
    Which is derived from tobacco, but ok. (Cannabis vaporizers tend to use hash oil.)