I still stand by what I wrote. He wasted his intelligence and potential working developing research chemicals and designer drugs, and being a human guinea pig taking them for decades.
You realise that every newly created drug starts off as a "research chemical", right?
Vaccines, psychiatric medications, painkillers - you name it.
It is a little simplistic to write him off as simply a "maker of research chemicals". This applies modern-day terminology - loaded with negative connotations - onto a man driven by his fascination to explore the variations in the psychoactivity of minor changes in the composition of molecules.
There is a long tradition of scientists on the vanguard of research - much less so nowadays than in the past - of self-experimentation.
Rather than give you a series of examples, I suggest having a look at the list of such practices on this wiki;
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-experimentation_in_medicine
Self experimentation in medicine is neither unprecedented or without merit; especially when studying the subjective differences in many series of slightly altered psychedelic substances.
While he was very intelligent at chemistry, neither he nor his wife Ann can write.
For the sake of argument, I am going to stick with that other controversial, dead counterculture figure I already mentioned - Mr Burroughs.
Sure - he could
write - but he also
killed his wife by attempting to drunkenly shoot a glass off her head.
Saying "neither he nor his wife Ann can write" is both a petty criticism and demonstrably false; whether you like their writing style(s) is hardly relevant.
In a tribute thread following the man's death it is either very cold, bitter (because he was a published and well read writer?) or trollish.
PriestTheyCalledHim said:
But it's obvious that both Alex and Ann burned out any intelligence they had by taking way too many drugs; but Timothy Leary did the same thing.
Obvious?
This is unfounded speculation, and absolutely absurd. The man was 88 years old, and - like many people of that age (or even in some cases - decades younger) he was suffering from dementia. There is absolutely
no evidence that this was caused by his experimentation with drugs - and to claim so is not only ignorant, but slanderous.
PriestTheyCalledHim said:
It is funny to me; but not surprising how his relatives and people are now auctioning off his possessions, signed books, and memorabilia on ebay to the highest bidder.
Why is that
funny? You realise how much of a financial burden health care is to people with serious illnesses (and needing 24hr care) in the United States? I don't know where you're from, which is why I ask this.
You aware that people have been collecting donations for sometime now, from charitable folk, to pay this man's health costs?
The family also reportedly were selling off parts of their property - which I believe he
inherited from his own, dead parents - to pay for his care in his twilight years.
So much for the "expensive government grants" you allege he received. How do you expect scientific researchers to find their work - and support themselves?
To claim he was rich, is - again - lacking in substance and understanding.
The man died broke, and asking for donations from members of the public.
You're not being "realistic" - you're slinging (bogus) shit at his legacy.
Just because I am being realistic about the Shulgins and not sugar coating them, it does not mean I am 'shitting on their tribute page'.
I am yet to see any "realism" frankly. Misinformed armchair criticism - sure.
But who is sugarcoating?
It's called
showing respect. It is a convention in western societies not to speak ill of the recently deceased, especially in public - particularly when people are
paying their respects - and even more so, when you make a lot of false accusations and conclusions.
His dignity is firmly intact - you should be a little more concerned about your own, frankly.
PriestTheyCalledHim said:
I like WSB for reasons other than his drug use/addiction.
So do I.
But he - like Shulgin - was a divisive character. Far, far more so.
He did not live a life of altruism - despite his considerable intellect - and arguably hurt (and killed, in his wife Joan's case) people in his wake. As a thief and an absent father to his (psychologically damaged) son - and a man with a predilection for (paid) sex with young boys - many criticised him as a pretty unsavoury character.
More to the point - Shulgin
created novel psychedelic compounds in the name of scientific research.
William Burroughs
sold heroin. He even explains how to cut it with one-third 'milk sugar' in his book
Junky.
Now, as I noted above - I am also a fan of his work, and don't judge an artist - or a person - by their drug use, or shady dealings.
But to lay all that personal shit on Shulgin is to take extremely cheap shots at a man who had arguably as much influence on post-war counterculture - and the broader culture - as our man Burroughs.
Burroughs "cut up" novels were an interesting artistic experiment - but hardly great pieces of writing.
Not only that, but they were a creation of Brion Gysin, his collaborator.
I don't care what you think of Shulgin personally - but show a little respect.
Bluelight would not be the place it is - if in fact it could ever have existed at all - without the incredible life's work Dr Alexander "Sasha" Shulgin.
Your criticisms are petty and lacking any evidence whatsoever.
