Self harm never had anything to do with anything.
This is Dan Baum recalling a conversation with a dead Ehrlichmann after he got out of prison, 20 years after he served with Nixon. Dan puts quotes around this passage but I don't believe for a second that that is what Ehrlichmann said. And Ehrlichmann died 17 years ago, so he's not around to defend himself.
Note also that Erlichmann's family based their denial of the Baum story partly on the notion that he never said anything racist in front of them - though his propensity for racism is definitely confirmed in the Watergate tapes.
Look, I'm not really here to stick up for Ehrlichmann. After all, he did go to jail for some time for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. First of all, that already makes him the least reliable of witnesses, even if he really did say that. Second, he's an easy target for a journalist that wants to sensationalize their story, and instead believing him just because "he's a journalist" is not rational. Dan Baum has written about that interview before and there was never anything close to that damning of a quote. This is why I think this quote is total hogwash. It fits exactly what you want to hear deep down about two bad people: Ehrlichmann and Nixon. Too bad it's likely a fabrication, with zero evidence otherwise.
"likely a fabrication"
"with zero evidence otherwise"
The burden of proof is on you to show that the quote is a fabrication, not on the journalist.
Let's go through it, though.
Going to jail for conspiracy and obstruction of justice makes him a criminal, but not necessarily a liar on techniques the U.S. government used against counterculture.
Secondly, Nixon and his administration did outrageous things. You can hardly dismiss more allegations of outrageous acts as more-likely-to-be-fabricated because it fits pre-existing narrative. That's, like, the opposite of how priors work. "It fits exactly what you want to hear deep down about two bad people: Ehrlichmann and Nixon" -- YES! Nixon and Ehrlichmann were bad people and did bad things. Did they do what Ehrlichmann (allegedly) describes? Who knows, but it isn't an argument against their having done something horrific that they had other horrific policies.
Nixon, you may remember, bugged a Supreme Court justice.
He had a good argument I think. Not sure if he's right but good argument.
The family thinks this quote is bunk, too.
"We never saw or heard anything from our dad, John Ehrlichman, that was derogatory about any person of color," wrote Peter Ehrlichman, Tom Ehrlichman, Jan Ehrlichman, Michael Ehrlichman and Jody E. Pineda in a statement provided to CNN.
"The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father. And collectively, that spans over 185 years of time with him," the Ehrlichman family wrote. "We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when dad can no longer respond. None of us have raised our kids that way, and that's because we were not raised that way."
from: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-r...
If you're falsely claiming a journalist is lying, it damn well is. We're talking about someone who referred to his notes of an interview and flat out quoted Erlichman by name with a lengthy quote. If you're contradicting him, it's hard to see how you're suggesting an innocent misquote - either Baum is lying or you're wrong.
> The family thinks this quote is bunk, too.
The family clearly doesn't know shit about Ehrlichman's racist views. He was caught on one of Nixon's tapes, released in 2003, ranting that black people were sexual degenerates with no family values, and in another tape that black people should be stuck in boxcars to work as domestics.
I'd point you at the recordings (good luck denying those), but the Nixon archives are really hard to search, so it might take some time. The latter is quoted in John Dean's book "The Nixon Defence", but google books isn't giving up the footnote today!
And I say this as someone who went through a prolonged depression following ecstacy use in my early 20s. I stupidly evaluated the dangers of the drug and determined that the naysayers who were warning of possible death were full of shit and didn't think to consider the less severe negative consequences.
Unfortunately, a lot of the context of illegal drugs is of the overemphasizing sort instead of normal, down-to-earth information taking good with the bad. Which leads to some things like your situation and stupid behavior.
Besides, it is really difficult to sort that depression stuff out. Pot and hash can induce panic attacks in a small portion of the population, but in general that only happens if they have a predisposition to it or if they have an untreated anxiety condition. And it seems to be the same sort of thing with other drugs - and I'm going to guess that it only happens with a small portion of users in reality, much like most folks don't get addicted to most drugs. I fully believe to get over that sort of hump, we not only need balanced and completely truthful information on drugs, but we also need to be able to have truthful and destigmatised discussion about mental health in addition to having facilities available to help folks out.
You figured out the dangers of high ecstasy usage yourself. Are you one of these people who thinks nobody but you is capable of figuring out how to use it safely?
I just think that potential ecstacy users need to hear that there are consequences that can be very severe that don't work well as scare tactics. If they understand the risks and still choose to use, then more power to them. They've made an informed choice based on accurate information. But accurate information is the key and we do a disservice as a society by putting out the ridiculous message that ecstacy can kill you.
Oh, and to equate breakup misery with clinical depression is pretty ignorant. Depression has a specific meaning that doesn't equate to sadness.
MDMA is famous for inducing temporary depression, ala a "breakup blues". The risk of extended or even permanent depression issues is not well known at this time, it does not seem likely from occasional doses as I understand it. But it still seems to remain a possibility with very high or extended doses. Certainly there's enough anecdotal reports out there that seem to suggest this.
Just because you can't really physically kill yourself with the drug, doesn't mean it can't do you bad otherwise.
But this same sort of stuff is true for so many other things. If it were that bad, I'm pretty sure there would be many more problems in places like Amsterdam.
As far as the stuff in the 1960's, literature gets weird. Some say that the stuff from the 60's was stronger than the stuff from the 90's forward: Some say it is in general safer. Safety might just be because more folks know what to expect and the culture 'grew up' as they say. Some say there was more 'bad' acid back then. Doesn't change what happened to them, nor that the two might (or might not) have been related.
But to me, this is all a cry for legality so that such things can be regulated, down to earth talks about what to expect and side effects can occur, and much better mental health screenings (and diagnostics).
People who go through a proper acid trip are permanently changed. Their core philosophy, religious and political views can be dramatically altered.
They stop believing the stories that the State and Church wants them to believe and some become hard to control, insubordinate, etc which I would sum up with one word - "free" (of course, with it's own set of consequences).
If the System "brainwashes", the LSD "braincleans".
And then people turn into "hippies", wearing flowers in their hairs, hugging trees and eating vegetarian food. They look at all people as "human beings", instead of "Communist", "Muslim" or "Gay".
They also want everyone to take it.
If I were the military-industrial ego-centric paranoid war-mongering establishment of the '60s, then I would definitely outlaw it and try to get rid of everyone who promotes its use.
Fortunately, LSD and Marijuana are making a major come back, now globally, with millions of young people "waking up", which in our day and age is vitally important, so I hope we'll see news like these more often, including the release of Ross Ulbricht of SilkRoad fame among others.
Some early LSD use was actually intended for therapeutic treatment, recall. LSD was also experimented with by those same military-industrial complex you are talking about, in the infamous Project MKULTRA experiments. These experiments may have contributed to making a hippie or two (Ken Kesey famously was a participant), but clearly not all participants became a hippie for sure. (Some individuals in fact received negative effects from what I recall, LSD is safer than DARE videos would have it, but the potential for causing mental harm is there, paranoia / schizophrenic type issues in particular) Do also recall that the Hell's Angels (in the California / Hunter S. Thompson circle at least) were also pretty big fans of LSD "back in the day". Biker culture is quite far away from hippie culture.
Today, with marijuana in particular, currently I think you are seeing somewhat of a "normalization" with marijuana in that it's becoming more "normal" to use in a casual manner (ala casual consumption of alcohol). It's not just "hippies" smoking marijuana anymore, it's anyone from CEOs to Olympic athletes these days. It's why, in my opinion, it eventually will be legalized. It won't happen with LSD as easily in my opinion, not enough potential for casual usage, but marijuana's story is a good reason why one has to be careful conflating the recreational substance with the culture it is associated with.