This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries] On: 10 January 2015, At: 11:08 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujpd20
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR a
a
a
a
J. Stephen Clifford , Norman Baldwin , Jon Brett , Louis Cerbo , Claudette a
b
Demers-Gendreau , Wade Davis & Myron J. Stolaroff a
Edgehill Newport , Newport , Rhode Island
b
Washington , D.C.
c
c
Lone Pine , California Published online: 20 Jan 2012.
To cite this article: J. Stephen Clifford , Norman Baldwin , Jon Brett , Louis Cerbo , Claudette Demers-Gendreau , Wade Davis & Myron J. Stolaroff (1990) LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 22:3, 377-379, DOI: 10.1080/02791072.1990.10472568 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.1990.10472568
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Letters to the Editor
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 11:08 10 January 2015
To the Editor: In Volume 22(1), January-March 1990, of the Journal ofPsychoactive Drugs, Stanton Peele discussed the disease concept approach to the treatment of alcoholism as practiced in many inpatient drug abuse treatment programs in the United States. Dr. Peele suggests (1990: 1) that these treatment programs "[accomplish] little beyond simple counseling." Furthermore, in response to an article by John Wallace (1989) in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Dr. Peele suggests that Dr. Wallace's description of the use of numerous psychological and psychiatric interventions with alcoholic patients at Edgehill Newport (e.g., use of systematic desensitization, biofeedback training, Eriksonian psychotherapy, sexual abuse therapy, antidepressant medication) may be inaccurate. Dr. Peele states (1990: 9) that "first-person accounts of Edgehill Newport's program do not describe cognitive-behavioral or other therapy techniques." While individual patient's experiences may vary, the majority of patients at Edgehill Newport do in fact receive far more than "simple counseling" in an effort to assist their recovery from alcohol and other chemical dependence. All patients at Edgehill Newport receive psychological testing and personality assessment, and 60% to 65% of all patients routinely meet with a member of the psychology or psychiatry staff for a variety of assessment techniques and therapeutic interventions. Many patients receive biofeedback services, Eriksonian psychotherapy, stress management training, sexual issues therapy, systematic desensitization, Bensonian meditative therapy, and psychiatric medications to name but a few of the therapies provided, in addition to traditional counseling. Hence, Dr. Peele's account of the Edgehill Newport program is most inaccurate. It is particularly important to emphasize that patients suffering from alcohol and other chemical dependence have remarkably complex treatment issues and needs. Consequently, the treatment provided to them at Edgehill Newport is varied, individualized, and draws on multiple profe ssional disciplines and skills.
good. Journal ofPsychoactive Drugs Vol. 20(4): 375-383. Wallace, J. 1989. Can Stanton Peele 's opinioos be taken seriously: A reply to Peele. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs Vol. 21(2): 259-271.
J. Stephen Clifford, Ph.D. Norman Baldwin, Ph.D. Jon Brett, Ph.D. Louis Cerbo, Ed.D. Claudette Demers-Gendreau, M.A. Edgehill Newport Newport, Rhode Island To the Editor: The day I moved to Washington I saw the body of a young man who had been shot four times in the head for refusing to buy drugs when he was accosted on the street by a dealer. The next morning I had breakfast with an associate who eight months before had his skull crushed by a baseball bat wielded by a teenager high on PCP. Since then, it has been an endless litany of gang warfare, schoolyard assassination, and outraged neighborhoods violated by terror: the morning newspaper (Washington Post March 19, 1990) tells of young children walking past a mortally wounded body to reach an ice cream truck, and of teenagers nonchalantly finishing a video game while one of their fellows lay bleeding and unassisted on the floor of the arcade. It is two years now since the appointment of a federal Drug Czar, but on the streets of the nation 's capital the situation has only gotten worse. In the District of Columbia and neighboring Prince George's County, drug-related violence left 565 dead and 2,425 wounded during 1989. Surely it is time to lay dogma aside and consider new solutions to the drug problem. To begin with, there are some uncomfortable facts: at least 25 million Americans choose regularly to defy the law by consuming illicit drugs, and after 20 years of an ongoing War on Drugs there are more people using more drugs today and in worse ways than ever before. Slogans, such as "just say no," make for good campaign rhetoric, but as a means for confronting a major sociological crisis, they are about as effective as treating manic depression with a happy face button. Prohibition is not working. During the Reagan years, funds for interdiction doubled and the War on Drugs cost
REFERENCES Peele, S. 1990. Why and by whom the American alcoholism treatment industry is under siege. Journal ofPsychoa ctive Drugs Vol. 22(1):
1-13. Peele, S. 1988 . Can alcoholism and other drug addiction problems be treated away oris the current treatment binge doing more harm than
Journal ofPsychoactive Drugs
377
Vol. 22(3), Jul-Sep 1990
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 11:08 10 January 2015
Letters to the Editor
taxpayers $8 billion annually. Yet during that same period the wholesale price of cocaine in Miami dropped from S60,OOO/kg to $IO,OOO/kg. In 1987, the combined interdictive efforts of the Coast Guard and the Navy cost $40 million, yet total drug seizures were only 20 vessels and 110 suspected smugglers. Between 1980 and 1988, the total federal antidrug budget went up 300%, while cocaine supply in the same period increased by a factor of 10. Not only is prohibition not working, the policy itself has generated the most sordid elements of the drug trade. It has spawned what is arguably the most successful commercial network in the history of capitalism. Within a mere 15 years, the law of supply and demand has generated a production capacity and a distribution apparatus that has placed an illicit product within ready reach of every American citizen. Of the world's 20 wealthiest individuals, two arc cocaine smugglers. The trade generates several billion dollars a year for Latin American drug lords, finances terrorist activity, and threatens to destabilize entire national economies as it rips apart the social fabric of Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. At home, the sale of cocaine and marijuana generates $50 billion each year, which fuels a massive criminal underground and subverts an entire generation that today makes its living buying and selling illicit drugs. The financial rewards of the drug traffic are irresistible for many in the urban underclass despite the obvious and substantial risks. This trade will never subside as long as demand exists and prohibition is in force . The drug problem is America's creation and the fundamental issue that must be dealt with is demand, not supply. Attempts to eradicate the source by means of herbicidal interdiction are impractical, environmentally unsound, and politically unacceptable if the United Stales wants to maintain any vestige of respect and support in Latin America. However, reducing demand by punishing the casual users of drugs in this country is not likely to work either. Advocates of stiffer penalties ignore the fact that the draconian laws already on the books have done little to deter use. At present, one-third of all federal prisoners are jailed for drug-law violations. Enforcing existing laws and incarcerating the 20% of Americans who choose to usc illicit drugs would cost $90 billion annually, assuming that security facilities could be found. The loss to national production would be intolerable. To find a way out of this nightmare, Americans must be prepared to take an entirely new look at society's re lationship with drugs. To begin, consider two well-known substances, both derived from plants and domesticated by South American Indians. The first is cocaine, which is addictive, dangerous, and illegal. Together with other prohibited narcotics, cocaine kills about 6,000 Americans each year. The second is the most addictive drug known. Every two months it kills more Americans than have died Journal a/Psychoactive Drugs
in the entire history of the AIDS epidemic. In this century, more people have died from this drug than from war. Each year the death toll in America alone reaches 390,000. Ninety percent of the users began as teenagers, yet as concern is directed on drug pushers who threaten American youths, those who make $3 billion each year selling this drug are never mentioned. In fact, the United States government subsidizes its production, taxes its sale, and permits dealers to advertize freely (with the exception of radio and television). The culprit of course is nicotine, which is derived from tobacco, a legal substance that more than any other exemplifies a confused relationship with drugs. How can society expect to get a handle on the problem of drug abuse if it cannot even come to terms with the range of licit drugs that are habitually used? In the United States, drug taking is defined as wrong, if not criminal, and hence licit drugs arc cloaked by the regular use of euphemisms - a cocktail party, a quick smoke, a coffee break - that dangerously distort their true pharmacological character. Few substances can so strongly lay claim to being powerful addictive drugs as alcohol and nicotine. Once drugs are no longer defined by culturebound moral or legal opinion but by pharmacology, it is clear that the vast majority of Americans do use drugs by choice. Mrs. Reagan told Americans to "just say no," when the reality is that most Americans "just say yes" and have done so for a very long time. The sociological crisis America faces today is society's own creation and responsibility. The first priority should be to break the back of the criminal element that now haunts the nation's cities. There are two possible means of achieving this end. One entails invoking barbaric punitive measures, which even if successful in curtailing drug use, will be certain to compromise the very ideals on which this nation was founded. The rational alternative is to consider seriously the legalization and taxation of all drugs, such that users would be made financially and socially responsible for the repercussions of their actions. The goal should not be a drugfree America. To expect all people to cease the social use of drugs for all time is naive and historically uninformed. The goal should be to understand and to address the economic and social forces that lead American citizens to use dangerous drugs in an unconscious and self-destructive manner. This critical task has consistently been obscured by empty rhetoric and unrealistic expectations generated by those with an ideological stake in the so-called War on Drugs. Wade Davis, Ph.D., EL.S . Washington, D.C.
378
Vol. 22(3), Jul-Sep 1990
Letters to the Editor
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 11:08 10 January 2015
To the Editor:
effects usually associated with hallucinogenic drugs, including transient muscle tension, nausea, and increased heart rate and temperature. While sometimes distracting, such symptoms did not interfere in most cases with the eventual enjoyment and constructive utilization of the experience. Nothing was observed that would contraindicate further use of these substances, About 60% of the subjects reported that their performance improved on such items as clarity of thought. flow of insights, communication with others, visual perception, and perception of a universal level of meaning and significance. About 10% felt that their performance on such items worsened. Forty-one subjects said that they would repeat the experience, while four other subjects would not Additional investigation to further define the characteristics and potential use for these drugs seems to be warranted.
I wish to bring to the attention of the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs two new psychoactive compounds that promise to have excellent psychotherapeutic value in clinical medicine. Preliminary tests have revealed enhanced performance in a number of areas, with a minimwn of objectionable side effects while under the influence of these drugs. The drugs are known as 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7, which are the abbreviated chemical names for 2,5-dimethoxy4-(ethylthio)phenethylamine and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-(Npropylthio)phenethylamine, respectively (Jacob & Shulgin 1981). Both of these drugs have passed through the preliminary group evaluation, which is recommended as appropriate procedure for evaluating new drugs (Shulgin, Shulgin & Jacob 1986). Because of the unusual effects of these drugs, Charles Wm. Wells and I (at separate locations) have explored their characteristics with a broad group of subjects. All trials were conducted prior to the enactment of the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986. A questionnaire was designed to reveal the characteristics that we felt were most important to uncover about new psychoactive subs lances, namely any untoward side effects that might occur and any useful properties they may have. Data were collected on 40 subjects who took 2C1'-2 for the first time and eight subjects who took 2C1'-7 for the first time. The drugs were administered in a friendly, supportive atmosphere in a setting of inspiring natural surroundings. The subjects covered a wide range of ages and interests and had had some previous experience with psychoactive drugs. Both drugs are active over a dose range of 12 to 30 mg, with 2C-1'-2 being somewhat more potent. They are similar in effect and reach full intensity in approximately two hours, with a useful working plateau near maximum intensity lasting about five hours. The descent is quite gradual and generally euphoric, providing several additional hours of heightened clarity that may be used to reflect on the prior experiences. Consequently, an entire day is devoted to the experience. While the action of the two drugs is similar, 2C-1'-7 is somewhat more intense and perhaps a bit longer acting. An interesting property of both drugs is that, should the initial dose prove inadequate, additional doses may be taken as late as five hours into the experience with an immediate increase in effect. In terms of activity, both of these drugs elicit empathic qualities, which led to free communication and feelings of well-being. At the same time, they have emotionalreleasing qualities that afford exploration of repressed feelings, personal dynamics, and a wide range of thought levels, including the mystical levels of consciousness. About one-fifth of the subjects reported physical side JOUTTliJI of Psychoactive Drugs
REFERENCES Jacob, P., ill & Shulgin, A.T. 1981. Unpublished fmdings. Shulgin, A.T.; Shulgin, A. & Jacob, P.,ill 1986. A protocol for the evaluation of new psychoactive drugs in man. Methods and Findings itt Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology Vol. 8(5): 313-320.
Myron J. Stolaroff Lone Pine, California
379
Vol. 22(3), Jul-Scp 1990
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujpd20
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR a
a
a
a
J. Stephen Clifford , Norman Baldwin , Jon Brett , Louis Cerbo , Claudette a
b
Demers-Gendreau , Wade Davis & Myron J. Stolaroff a
Edgehill Newport , Newport , Rhode Island
b
Washington , D.C.
c
c
Lone Pine , California Published online: 20 Jan 2012.
To cite this article: J. Stephen Clifford , Norman Baldwin , Jon Brett , Louis Cerbo , Claudette Demers-Gendreau , Wade Davis & Myron J. Stolaroff (1990) LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 22:3, 377-379, DOI: 10.1080/02791072.1990.10472568 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.1990.10472568
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Letters to the Editor
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 11:08 10 January 2015
To the Editor: In Volume 22(1), January-March 1990, of the Journal ofPsychoactive Drugs, Stanton Peele discussed the disease concept approach to the treatment of alcoholism as practiced in many inpatient drug abuse treatment programs in the United States. Dr. Peele suggests (1990: 1) that these treatment programs "[accomplish] little beyond simple counseling." Furthermore, in response to an article by John Wallace (1989) in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Dr. Peele suggests that Dr. Wallace's description of the use of numerous psychological and psychiatric interventions with alcoholic patients at Edgehill Newport (e.g., use of systematic desensitization, biofeedback training, Eriksonian psychotherapy, sexual abuse therapy, antidepressant medication) may be inaccurate. Dr. Peele states (1990: 9) that "first-person accounts of Edgehill Newport's program do not describe cognitive-behavioral or other therapy techniques." While individual patient's experiences may vary, the majority of patients at Edgehill Newport do in fact receive far more than "simple counseling" in an effort to assist their recovery from alcohol and other chemical dependence. All patients at Edgehill Newport receive psychological testing and personality assessment, and 60% to 65% of all patients routinely meet with a member of the psychology or psychiatry staff for a variety of assessment techniques and therapeutic interventions. Many patients receive biofeedback services, Eriksonian psychotherapy, stress management training, sexual issues therapy, systematic desensitization, Bensonian meditative therapy, and psychiatric medications to name but a few of the therapies provided, in addition to traditional counseling. Hence, Dr. Peele's account of the Edgehill Newport program is most inaccurate. It is particularly important to emphasize that patients suffering from alcohol and other chemical dependence have remarkably complex treatment issues and needs. Consequently, the treatment provided to them at Edgehill Newport is varied, individualized, and draws on multiple profe ssional disciplines and skills.
good. Journal ofPsychoactive Drugs Vol. 20(4): 375-383. Wallace, J. 1989. Can Stanton Peele 's opinioos be taken seriously: A reply to Peele. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs Vol. 21(2): 259-271.
J. Stephen Clifford, Ph.D. Norman Baldwin, Ph.D. Jon Brett, Ph.D. Louis Cerbo, Ed.D. Claudette Demers-Gendreau, M.A. Edgehill Newport Newport, Rhode Island To the Editor: The day I moved to Washington I saw the body of a young man who had been shot four times in the head for refusing to buy drugs when he was accosted on the street by a dealer. The next morning I had breakfast with an associate who eight months before had his skull crushed by a baseball bat wielded by a teenager high on PCP. Since then, it has been an endless litany of gang warfare, schoolyard assassination, and outraged neighborhoods violated by terror: the morning newspaper (Washington Post March 19, 1990) tells of young children walking past a mortally wounded body to reach an ice cream truck, and of teenagers nonchalantly finishing a video game while one of their fellows lay bleeding and unassisted on the floor of the arcade. It is two years now since the appointment of a federal Drug Czar, but on the streets of the nation 's capital the situation has only gotten worse. In the District of Columbia and neighboring Prince George's County, drug-related violence left 565 dead and 2,425 wounded during 1989. Surely it is time to lay dogma aside and consider new solutions to the drug problem. To begin with, there are some uncomfortable facts: at least 25 million Americans choose regularly to defy the law by consuming illicit drugs, and after 20 years of an ongoing War on Drugs there are more people using more drugs today and in worse ways than ever before. Slogans, such as "just say no," make for good campaign rhetoric, but as a means for confronting a major sociological crisis, they are about as effective as treating manic depression with a happy face button. Prohibition is not working. During the Reagan years, funds for interdiction doubled and the War on Drugs cost
REFERENCES Peele, S. 1990. Why and by whom the American alcoholism treatment industry is under siege. Journal ofPsychoa ctive Drugs Vol. 22(1):
1-13. Peele, S. 1988 . Can alcoholism and other drug addiction problems be treated away oris the current treatment binge doing more harm than
Journal ofPsychoactive Drugs
377
Vol. 22(3), Jul-Sep 1990
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 11:08 10 January 2015
Letters to the Editor
taxpayers $8 billion annually. Yet during that same period the wholesale price of cocaine in Miami dropped from S60,OOO/kg to $IO,OOO/kg. In 1987, the combined interdictive efforts of the Coast Guard and the Navy cost $40 million, yet total drug seizures were only 20 vessels and 110 suspected smugglers. Between 1980 and 1988, the total federal antidrug budget went up 300%, while cocaine supply in the same period increased by a factor of 10. Not only is prohibition not working, the policy itself has generated the most sordid elements of the drug trade. It has spawned what is arguably the most successful commercial network in the history of capitalism. Within a mere 15 years, the law of supply and demand has generated a production capacity and a distribution apparatus that has placed an illicit product within ready reach of every American citizen. Of the world's 20 wealthiest individuals, two arc cocaine smugglers. The trade generates several billion dollars a year for Latin American drug lords, finances terrorist activity, and threatens to destabilize entire national economies as it rips apart the social fabric of Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. At home, the sale of cocaine and marijuana generates $50 billion each year, which fuels a massive criminal underground and subverts an entire generation that today makes its living buying and selling illicit drugs. The financial rewards of the drug traffic are irresistible for many in the urban underclass despite the obvious and substantial risks. This trade will never subside as long as demand exists and prohibition is in force . The drug problem is America's creation and the fundamental issue that must be dealt with is demand, not supply. Attempts to eradicate the source by means of herbicidal interdiction are impractical, environmentally unsound, and politically unacceptable if the United Stales wants to maintain any vestige of respect and support in Latin America. However, reducing demand by punishing the casual users of drugs in this country is not likely to work either. Advocates of stiffer penalties ignore the fact that the draconian laws already on the books have done little to deter use. At present, one-third of all federal prisoners are jailed for drug-law violations. Enforcing existing laws and incarcerating the 20% of Americans who choose to usc illicit drugs would cost $90 billion annually, assuming that security facilities could be found. The loss to national production would be intolerable. To find a way out of this nightmare, Americans must be prepared to take an entirely new look at society's re lationship with drugs. To begin, consider two well-known substances, both derived from plants and domesticated by South American Indians. The first is cocaine, which is addictive, dangerous, and illegal. Together with other prohibited narcotics, cocaine kills about 6,000 Americans each year. The second is the most addictive drug known. Every two months it kills more Americans than have died Journal a/Psychoactive Drugs
in the entire history of the AIDS epidemic. In this century, more people have died from this drug than from war. Each year the death toll in America alone reaches 390,000. Ninety percent of the users began as teenagers, yet as concern is directed on drug pushers who threaten American youths, those who make $3 billion each year selling this drug are never mentioned. In fact, the United States government subsidizes its production, taxes its sale, and permits dealers to advertize freely (with the exception of radio and television). The culprit of course is nicotine, which is derived from tobacco, a legal substance that more than any other exemplifies a confused relationship with drugs. How can society expect to get a handle on the problem of drug abuse if it cannot even come to terms with the range of licit drugs that are habitually used? In the United States, drug taking is defined as wrong, if not criminal, and hence licit drugs arc cloaked by the regular use of euphemisms - a cocktail party, a quick smoke, a coffee break - that dangerously distort their true pharmacological character. Few substances can so strongly lay claim to being powerful addictive drugs as alcohol and nicotine. Once drugs are no longer defined by culturebound moral or legal opinion but by pharmacology, it is clear that the vast majority of Americans do use drugs by choice. Mrs. Reagan told Americans to "just say no," when the reality is that most Americans "just say yes" and have done so for a very long time. The sociological crisis America faces today is society's own creation and responsibility. The first priority should be to break the back of the criminal element that now haunts the nation's cities. There are two possible means of achieving this end. One entails invoking barbaric punitive measures, which even if successful in curtailing drug use, will be certain to compromise the very ideals on which this nation was founded. The rational alternative is to consider seriously the legalization and taxation of all drugs, such that users would be made financially and socially responsible for the repercussions of their actions. The goal should not be a drugfree America. To expect all people to cease the social use of drugs for all time is naive and historically uninformed. The goal should be to understand and to address the economic and social forces that lead American citizens to use dangerous drugs in an unconscious and self-destructive manner. This critical task has consistently been obscured by empty rhetoric and unrealistic expectations generated by those with an ideological stake in the so-called War on Drugs. Wade Davis, Ph.D., EL.S . Washington, D.C.
378
Vol. 22(3), Jul-Sep 1990
Letters to the Editor
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 11:08 10 January 2015
To the Editor:
effects usually associated with hallucinogenic drugs, including transient muscle tension, nausea, and increased heart rate and temperature. While sometimes distracting, such symptoms did not interfere in most cases with the eventual enjoyment and constructive utilization of the experience. Nothing was observed that would contraindicate further use of these substances, About 60% of the subjects reported that their performance improved on such items as clarity of thought. flow of insights, communication with others, visual perception, and perception of a universal level of meaning and significance. About 10% felt that their performance on such items worsened. Forty-one subjects said that they would repeat the experience, while four other subjects would not Additional investigation to further define the characteristics and potential use for these drugs seems to be warranted.
I wish to bring to the attention of the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs two new psychoactive compounds that promise to have excellent psychotherapeutic value in clinical medicine. Preliminary tests have revealed enhanced performance in a number of areas, with a minimwn of objectionable side effects while under the influence of these drugs. The drugs are known as 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7, which are the abbreviated chemical names for 2,5-dimethoxy4-(ethylthio)phenethylamine and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-(Npropylthio)phenethylamine, respectively (Jacob & Shulgin 1981). Both of these drugs have passed through the preliminary group evaluation, which is recommended as appropriate procedure for evaluating new drugs (Shulgin, Shulgin & Jacob 1986). Because of the unusual effects of these drugs, Charles Wm. Wells and I (at separate locations) have explored their characteristics with a broad group of subjects. All trials were conducted prior to the enactment of the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986. A questionnaire was designed to reveal the characteristics that we felt were most important to uncover about new psychoactive subs lances, namely any untoward side effects that might occur and any useful properties they may have. Data were collected on 40 subjects who took 2C1'-2 for the first time and eight subjects who took 2C1'-7 for the first time. The drugs were administered in a friendly, supportive atmosphere in a setting of inspiring natural surroundings. The subjects covered a wide range of ages and interests and had had some previous experience with psychoactive drugs. Both drugs are active over a dose range of 12 to 30 mg, with 2C-1'-2 being somewhat more potent. They are similar in effect and reach full intensity in approximately two hours, with a useful working plateau near maximum intensity lasting about five hours. The descent is quite gradual and generally euphoric, providing several additional hours of heightened clarity that may be used to reflect on the prior experiences. Consequently, an entire day is devoted to the experience. While the action of the two drugs is similar, 2C-1'-7 is somewhat more intense and perhaps a bit longer acting. An interesting property of both drugs is that, should the initial dose prove inadequate, additional doses may be taken as late as five hours into the experience with an immediate increase in effect. In terms of activity, both of these drugs elicit empathic qualities, which led to free communication and feelings of well-being. At the same time, they have emotionalreleasing qualities that afford exploration of repressed feelings, personal dynamics, and a wide range of thought levels, including the mystical levels of consciousness. About one-fifth of the subjects reported physical side JOUTTliJI of Psychoactive Drugs
REFERENCES Jacob, P., ill & Shulgin, A.T. 1981. Unpublished fmdings. Shulgin, A.T.; Shulgin, A. & Jacob, P.,ill 1986. A protocol for the evaluation of new psychoactive drugs in man. Methods and Findings itt Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology Vol. 8(5): 313-320.
Myron J. Stolaroff Lone Pine, California
379
Vol. 22(3), Jul-Scp 1990
