revisiting an old thread

[Doug Millison]

http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v11n2/11222gro.html

"Grof: Usually, when you read the psychedelic literature there is a
distinction being made between the so-called natural psychedelics, such as
psilocybin, psilocin, mescaline, harmaline, or ibogaine, which are produced
by various plants (and this applies even more to psychedelic plants
themselves) and synthetic psychedelics that are artificially produced in
the laboratory. And LSD, which is semi-synthetic and thus a substance that
was produced in the laboratory, is usually included among the latter. I
understand that you have a very different feeling about it.

Hofmann: Yes. When I discovered lysergic acid amides in ololiuqui, I
realized that LSD is really just a small chemical modification of a very
old sacred drug of Mexico. LSD belongs, therefore, by its chemical
structure and by its activity, in the group of the magic plants of
Mesoamerica. It does not occur in nature as such, but it represents just a
small chemical variation of natural material. Therefore, it belongs to this
group as a chemical and also, of course, because of its effect and its
spiritual potential. The use of LSD in the drug scene can thus be seen as a
profanation of a sacred substance. And this profanation is the reason that
LSD has not had beneficial effects in the drug scene. In many instances, it
actually produced terrifying and deleterious effects instead of beneficial
effects, because of misuse, because it was a profanation. It should have
been subjected to the same taboos and the same reverence the Indians had
toward these substances. If that approach had been transferred to LSD, LSD
would never have had such a bad reputation. "