- Over the past several years, the potency of LSD obtained during drug law enforcement operations in the United States has ranged between 20 and 80 micrograms per every 50 micrograms
160% purity ?
Are you sure it's per 50ug not per 100ug ?
Here is the original quote from the DEA (
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/lsd/lsd-4.htm):
- Over the past several years, the potency of LSD obtained during drug law enforcement operations has ranged between 20 and 80 micrograms per dosage unit. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) recognizes 50 micrograms as the standard dosage unit equivalency.
That just describes how much drug is in each "hit" and 50 mg is some kind of average dose. Not anything about purity of drug as delivered. I presume the mean 50 mg of pure (100%) LSD per each hit. ---rmhermen
Dr. Bob, can you send the image to jasonr@bomis.com? Or just ask Jason for the URL of that upload page (I don't have it myself)?
I am idly wondering how many people with doctorates are working on Wikipedia. If it's a very large number, that could be a very good PR statistic. (This isn't to say that people without Ph.D.'s are not welcome, of course!) --LMS
Article read "(Despite rulings that the First Amendment protects religions even if they do not make sense, courts today tend to reject such defenses in "drug" cases.)" -- not only is that very U.S.-centric, it's not NPOV, and completely fails to understand the U.S. Supreme Court's logic. --
SJK
LSD (Libra, Solidi, Denarii) is also the common abbreviation for the British money system prior to 1971. There is obviously potential for ambiguity here when we get round to doing an article on British Coinage. --
Derek Ross
SJK, if you mean the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that the state does not need to show compelling interest to restrict the free exercise of religion provided it doesn't aim the law at particular religions, then I admit I don't understand their logic. Not only does it contradict precedent, but Scalia himself ruled that New Jersey couldn't restrict the Boy Scouts' constitutional rights even with a law that applied to everyone. Would you mind explaining it? -- Dan
I wasn't referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the compelling state interest test. Even before that, the U.S. Supreme Court had always rejected the use of illegal drugs for religious purposes, with the exception of the use of peyote by the Native American Church. Most countries with constitutional protection of freedom of religion prohibit use of illegal drugs even for religious purposes, and their courts don't consider that a violation of freedom of religion. Constitutional protections of freedom of religion are intended primarily to protect what are traditionally considered to be religious practices, and which can be carried out with little harm to others: e.g. prayer, meditation, singing, giving sermons, printing and distributing literature, etc. They are not intended to give religions a carte blanche exclusion from the law. Otherwise we'd have to allow the practice of such religious activities as human sacrifice.
I'm not saying I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court on this -- I don't support drug prohibition. But "(Despite rulings that the First Amendment protects religions even if they do not make sense, courts today tend to reject such defenses in "drug" cases.)" is biased, and ignores the Court's logic. -- SJK
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)