Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (77152)	4/7/2000 12:26:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Whether they were violating research protocols OR endangering students is frightfully subjective. It depends greatly on perspective. ...If you think that psychedelics are a possible key to the next evolutionary step - then Alpert et al. were doing the only right thing. If you believe that psychedelics were a danger to American youth, then you'd be mighty sore at Yale for not doing more sooner. (Fwiw, my opinion falls between those two rails.) The university leaders were placed in a dicey situation. For Leary and Alpert to gain the freedom to practice their new evangelism, Yale had to boot'em. Because they weren't going to agree to stop, not when they sincerely believed they's found a Truth. The increasingly volatile politics of the situation forced Yale's hand. Every story has two sides. Yale's historians got the final say on this, not Leary's.