User talk:Jasonstephensbrighton

History of LSD
Thanks for your edits to History of LSD. I've got some questions about your changes if you have a minute. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) You removed mention of Ronald Stark, yet you added sources from material that mentions him.
 * 2) You removed the statement that so-called warnings of LSD "side-effects" were "misleading or patently false", yet you added sources that support this idea.
 * 3) You argue that it is ironic that LSD was viewed as a mind control weapon and a mind expanding substance, but that seems to be an oversimplification of the history as well as a distortion of the timeline. LSD was viewed as a weapon by the military and then the intelligence community, but in the hands of academics, it was viewed as a therapeutic tool.  The question of "mind expansion" is problematic, as that term can be confusing if not misleading.  Can LSD augment the human mind?  Maybe, maybe not.  Can coffee?  What about nicotine?
 * 4) You say that, "the media's role in magnifying the voice of the loud minority during the 1960's has resulted in a distorted view of the 1960's being fabricated." That appears to be your opinion. You go on to quote Allen Ginsberg, when you should have attributed the opinion to him in the first place.  The combination of these edits is somewhat of a distortion.
 * 5) You say that, "The view that LSD and the counter culture movement defined the 1960's is incorrect." Again, this is your opinion, and it appears to be a straw man.  Who his saying that LSD defined the 1960s?  You go on quote Jay Stephens as if this supports your opinion.  Again, this appears to be a distortion.
 * 6) You follow this with, "The history of LSD then requires an understanding of the impulses of the minority groups within society which readily embraced the drug." Again, your opinion.  No reference.  I'm actually curious why you think this, but I find out later on that you think it is a "communist" impulse.
 * 7) You say that Huxley was conservative, but my understanding is that when he met Timothy Leary, he considered Leary more conservative than himself. Your portrayal of this distinction is again, distorted, especially by the timeline.  Leary originally wanted to study the drug in controlled settings and give it to select people.  And he did this until he got shut down in the states and then Mexico.
 * 8) You then go on to the 1960s, and say that a casual group of LSD users expanded into a subculture that promoted the mystical and religious symbolism of LSD and advocated its use. Some of this is correct, but the subculture was already in place.  I'm curious what you think the "mystical and religious symbolism" is and what you think they mean by "raising consciousness".
 * Now, after saying this, you seem to let loose with a flurry of statements. You claim that LSD's rise in popularity was due to a rebellion against materialism.  That's debatable.  But you go on to talk about its use as a deconditioning agent, which is by all accounts true and important, and should be discussed more.  After all, this is why it was thought to have therapeutic applications, and why it was so feared by the establishment.  LSD use made people ask questions, and they often questioned authority.
 * 1) Your statement about Ken Kesey misses the point. It isn't that he "liked what he saw", but he was, in fact, one of the writers Huxley and others were trying to reach.  Kesey could take the drug and come back and write about it.  This is exactly what Ginsberg was trying to get Leary to do; Give the drug (at first psilocybin capsules) to people who could come back and describe it; The average person (i.e. non-artist) taking LSD cannot do this.  The popularization of the drug outside of the medical world began with artists.  Kesey was only one small player.  You forget that Cary Grant was a huge proponent, as were others. Tom Wolfe didn't write his book until years later, so you are distorting the timeline again.
 * 2) You claim that the popularity of the drug was due to collective action. I'm not following you here.  You start making a series of unattributed claims, such as "history has a tendency to over emphasise the role of individuals concerning the history of movements..."  I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  You then talk about a "loud minority" again.  You then say, "All individual figures related to the history of LSD are products of the socio-cultural elements of the society in which they resided."  Well, yes, that's basically a direct quote from Timothy Leary, who originally said that.  You then proceed to talk about the Haight-Asbury as one expression of this community and confuse it's rise with Kesey, claiming that the Haight was the "core" of the LSD movement.  This is an oversimplification and a distortion of the history.
 * 3) At this point, you go into overdrive. You claim that LSD was adopted as the psychedelic drug of choice, when in fact cannabis was, not LSD.  You then claim that LSD declined "partly due to negative publicity...on side-effects...criminalization...law enforcement."  Actuallly, LSD use declined because it was made illegal and because the LSD on the streets after criminalization could not be trusted.  So the government, by making it illegal, made it more dangerous to use, as people could no longer be sure what they were getting.  As for the so-called negative side-effects, 99% of what you call "negative publicity" was pure propaganda.  You seem to be mixing fact and fiction throughout your edits.  You then go on to talk about "communist" Czechoslovakia, implying that LSD use was a red diaper baby plot to weaken the minds of Americans.  (Dr. Strangelove anyone?)  You then attempt to implicate Timothy Leary in this communist plot.  Don't hold back now.  You then say that the decrease in LSD use was linked to a "conservative resurgence" and the demise of the counter culture.  You then throw in something about the "resurgent right" and quote Alan Crawford from "Thunder on the Right" to make your point, an obvious form of WP:SYNTH.  You then say that the youth movement "suddenly collapsed", neglecting to mention that they had, gasp, grown up.  That's usually what happens when you age.  You then go on to put the nail in the coffin by attributing the whole thing to a dream, an "illusion of acid wisdom", and you start to take a few quotes out of context from Stevens to make your point.  Sorry, but this is not how we write articles on Wikipedia, but it is damn good propaganda.