- 21/11/2009
- 490
- 80
This thread is for the general discussion of the Item Timothy Leary, Richard Alpert (Ram Dass) and the changing definition of psilocybin. Please add to the discussion here.
Última edição por um moderador:
Teonanacatl.org
Aqui discutimos micologia amadora e enteogenia.
Cadastre-se para virar um membro da comunidade! Após seu cadastro, você poderá participar deste site adicionando seus próprios tópicos e postagens.
-
Por favor, leia com atenção as Regras e o Termo de Responsabilidade do Fórum. Ambos lhe ajudarão a entender o que esperamos em termos de conduta no Fórum e também o posicionamento legal do mesmo.
Artigo Timothy Leary, Richard Alpert (Ram Dass) and the changing definition of psilocybin
- Criador do tópico Átomo
- Data de início
- richard alpert timothy leary
- 07/07/2009
- 148
- 80
Timothy Leary, Richard Alpert (Ram Dass) and the changing definition of psilocybin
Colin Warka,∗, John F. Galliherb
International Journal of Drug Policy 21 (2010) 234–239
Resumo:
Background: This research focuses on the events leading to the 1968 U.S. federal prohibition of psilocybin. It is a study of duelling moral entrepreneurs—Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert vs. the Harvard University Administration. The goal is to show how the primary active compound in an ostensibly harmless fungus (the psilocybin mushroom) became controversial in less than a decade.
Methods:Weused books, newspapers, magazine articles and previously unpublished materials (including documents from the Harvard Archives) to analyze Leary and Alpert’s lives and careers through the early 1970s.
Results: The prohibition of psilocybin in the U.S. was largely a product of Leary and Alpert’s involvement in the “Harvard drug scandal” and their transformation from Harvard professors to countercultural icons. They tested the substance on a variety of human subjects and in doing so piqued the interest of Harvard undergraduates while drawing condemnation from other faculty and Harvard administrators. This case is theoretically interesting because unlike most illegal drugs, psilocybin was never linked to a threatening minority group, but to some of the nation’s most privileged youth.
Conclusion: The Harvard administrators were not really moral entrepreneurs but Leary and Alpert clearly were. Although they were far from being prohibitionists, they were self-righteous crusaders on different but equally holy missions for the good of young and minority Americans. Ironically, due to their successes the possession of psilocybin was criminalized under United States federal law in 1968 (Pub. L. No. 90-639, Stat. 1361 1968 and Boire, 2002). This case study demonstrates that crusaders can be successful in changing culture even when laws are passed in futile attempts to control their behaviour, just as Leary predicted.
View attachment Timothy Leary, Richard Alpert (Ram Dass) and the changing.pdf
Colin Warka,∗, John F. Galliherb
International Journal of Drug Policy 21 (2010) 234–239
Resumo:
Background: This research focuses on the events leading to the 1968 U.S. federal prohibition of psilocybin. It is a study of duelling moral entrepreneurs—Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert vs. the Harvard University Administration. The goal is to show how the primary active compound in an ostensibly harmless fungus (the psilocybin mushroom) became controversial in less than a decade.
Methods:Weused books, newspapers, magazine articles and previously unpublished materials (including documents from the Harvard Archives) to analyze Leary and Alpert’s lives and careers through the early 1970s.
Results: The prohibition of psilocybin in the U.S. was largely a product of Leary and Alpert’s involvement in the “Harvard drug scandal” and their transformation from Harvard professors to countercultural icons. They tested the substance on a variety of human subjects and in doing so piqued the interest of Harvard undergraduates while drawing condemnation from other faculty and Harvard administrators. This case is theoretically interesting because unlike most illegal drugs, psilocybin was never linked to a threatening minority group, but to some of the nation’s most privileged youth.
Conclusion: The Harvard administrators were not really moral entrepreneurs but Leary and Alpert clearly were. Although they were far from being prohibitionists, they were self-righteous crusaders on different but equally holy missions for the good of young and minority Americans. Ironically, due to their successes the possession of psilocybin was criminalized under United States federal law in 1968 (Pub. L. No. 90-639, Stat. 1361 1968 and Boire, 2002). This case study demonstrates that crusaders can be successful in changing culture even when laws are passed in futile attempts to control their behaviour, just as Leary predicted.
View attachment Timothy Leary, Richard Alpert (Ram Dass) and the changing.pdf
Última edição por um moderador: