Outstanding Figures of HIGH TIMES: Interview with Alexander Shulgin

Alexander “Sasha” Shulgin is undoubtedly a record-holder when it comes to the variety of psychoactive substances he consumed throughout his life. Many of these substances he synthesized himself in his personal laboratory. Even more remarkable is that this scientist, pharmacist, and professional psychonaut was the inventor and discoverer of many of them. Thanks to Shulgin’s work, the world became acquainted with such psychoactive substances as STP, 2CB, DOI, and many other members of the DO family of psychedelics.

At the young age of 16, the future legend of psychonautics was able to enter Harvard on a scholarship for gifted children. However, he didn’t stay long at the university, dropping out to join the US Navy on the eve of the country’s entry into World War II. Interested in chemistry since childhood, Shulgin didn’t abandon his “hobby” during his service: as he himself claimed, while serving as a crew member on an escort destroyer in the North Atlantic, he continued to read a chemistry textbook, which he had mastered by the end of the war.

After the war, Shulgin decided to continue his education, enrolling at the University of California, Berkeley, where he eventually earned a doctorate in organic chemistry. For several years, he continued research in psychiatry and pharmacology at the university’s San Francisco campus, where his talents were noticed by representatives of Dow Chemical Company, who later invited him to work as a senior scientist in the organic chemistry development department. It was at this stage of his life and career that Shulgin began his acquaintance with psychoactive organic compounds. After presenting his management with a project for an effective organic pesticide, the company agreed to give the young scientist his own laboratory, all necessary resources, and complete freedom to pursue personal projects. In such conditions, Shulgin first had the opportunity to study and develop substances that truly interested him—namely, various psychedelic compounds, which in the 1950s and 60s were stirring both the scientific community and the general public.

Shulgin’s personal interest in researching psychedelics and their effects on human consciousness formed in 1960, when he first tried natural mescaline. At the time, knowing little about the pharmacology of such substances, Shulgin took about 600 milligrams for his first experience—a very high dose even for an experienced psychonaut. The experience had a profound impact on the then 35-year-old scientist, who from that point on decided to dedicate himself to studying psychedelics and analyzing their effects on the body and mind. His scientific interest in psychedelics soon grew into a genuine love for these substances, which he would regularly use for both scientific and recreational purposes.

Eventually, realizing the limitations of his position, Shulgin left Dow Chemicals and opened his own private laboratory, which had official permission from the DEA to synthesize and test psychoactive substances, thanks to his connections within the agency. Recognizing Shulgin’s talent and experience in synthesizing and analyzing psychoactive substances, the DEA granted his lab a unique privilege: the right to synthesize any psychoactive substances, provided they were made only in small quantities and never left the lab. For many decades, Shulgin continued to work for the government as an independent contractor, regularly consulted to study new “designer” drugs appearing on the market. At the same time, Sasha continued to actively study various psychoactive substances, developing analogs and entirely new compounds out of personal interest.

Perhaps his name would never have become widely known outside professional circles if not for one fateful discovery that not only deeply impressed the chemist but also shook the world. Back in 1965, Shulgin analyzed an old, forgotten substance developed in 1912 by Merck Pharmaceuticals, which some doctors found to have remarkable therapeutic properties, allegedly making it easier to work with even the most difficult psychiatric patients. This substance was MDMA, or “ecstasy,” which would later leak onto the US black market by the late 1970s, eventually becoming the foundation of rave culture by the end of the next decade.

Despite positive reviews and authorities’ belief in its safety when used therapeutically, the substance remained an experimental chemical known to a narrow circle of therapists. By 1977, the substance somehow “leaked” beyond labs and therapists’ offices, reaching the open market somewhere in Texas. As someone who openly advocated for the legalization and commercial release of MDMA, Shulgin was immediately declared the main culprit of the leak, and from the late 1970s, the DEA closely monitored his lab’s activities. Although authorities failed to prove his involvement in the release of the formula or information about its effects beyond the lab, the previously warm relationship between Shulgin and the authorities was irreparably damaged. Despite the DEA continuing to rely on his expertise and supply his lab with resources, authorities made several attempts to revoke his privileges to freely work with such substances. After several attempts to revoke his license to work with strictly prohibited psychoactive substances during the 1980s, by 1996, the DEA decided to take forceful action, conducting a police raid on his lab. Despite their efforts to find evidence of illegal distribution or commercial production, they left empty-handed, allowing him to continue his research in peace. From then until his death, Shulgin continued to synthesize and test new psychoactive substances, publishing information about his work in books like PiHKAL and TiHKAL, where he discussed their synthesis and physiological and psychoactive effects.

This interview was given by Mr. Shulgin and his wife and scientific partner, Ann Shulgin, to High Times editor David Bienenstock in May 2005 during a meeting in New York.

Interview with Alexander and Ann Shulgin

David Bienenstock: Hello, Mr. and Mrs. Shulgin. It’s a pleasure that you agreed to this interview with our publication. To start, how would you describe your profession to a random person you might meet on a bus or a plane?

Dr. Shulgin: Of course, I’d say it depends on the situation. Usually, when I get such questions in everyday life from strangers, I say that I study the human brain and the various tools that make it work. I explain that these tools are chemical substances, which I study and develop myself.

DB: Can you tell me which substances you have invented during your career?

AS: Certainly, though it’s quite a long list. To be precise, over my long scientific career, I have synthesized 150 psychedelic chemical compounds that were previously unknown to science. That’s in addition to all the substances already known to medicine that I was able to synthesize.

DB: I noticed you use the word “psychedelic” for these substances, instead of “psychoactive.” Why did you choose that word, and what does it mean to you? Does it better reflect the nature of your work and interests?

AS: I agree, the term “psychedelic” more accurately describes the substances I work with. In my view, the term highlights those substances that stimulate the brain’s activity, unlocking its full potential for thinking and perceiving the world. Unlike “psychoactive” substances like stimulants or depressants, psychedelics affect the very “soul” of a person, which is what the term means. Unlike the simple effects of stimulation or suppression of the nervous system, these compounds produce fundamentally different, hard-to-describe effects. They are always new and always ambiguous. For some, the experience may be frightening; for others, exciting and pleasant. In any case, psychedelics reveal a person’s true self, exposing fears, dreams, and experiences, leaving the mind alone with these sensations. The process is very individual and, without a doubt, creative. Even when taking the same substance at the same dose, a person always finds themselves in a new state. Perhaps for these reasons, such substances have therapeutic effects for people suffering from various psychological problems and complexes.

DB: So, for you, the term that many politicians use as a synonym for “drug” is actually neutral, not negative?

AS: I’d even say the term “psychedelics” is a very positive word in my vocabulary. I agree that in public consciousness the term has negative connotations, but that’s mostly because these substances have long been misused by society. While I wouldn’t criticize rave or hippie culture, which contributed to this image, I must admit that such strict bans on psychedelics probably wouldn’t exist if not for the “bad publicity” provided by these movements. I support the use of psychedelics for both recreational and therapeutic purposes, but such procedures should be conducted in a controlled environment, not on the street as young people in these subcultures often do.

DB: Am I right in understanding that, in the end, prohibitionists are to blame for limiting knowledge about psychedelics? Aren’t they the ones trying to ban these substances and label them as “drugs” for political reasons? What do you think would happen if their dream came true and they managed to completely eradicate psychedelic culture and related substances?

AS: Without a doubt, it would be a global catastrophe. Humanity would lose a bit more of its freedom, deprived of this key to the subconscious. It would be comparable to the complete loss of freedom of thought and creativity for everyone.

DB: Do you still continue to study and synthesize such substances?

AS: Yes, I still have a professional laboratory at home where I work every day. The authorities know about it but remain tolerant of its existence, even though this probably annoys many DEA officials. As I mentioned, I keep a compact but well-equipped lab with resources for biological synthesis of complex chemical compounds. There’s a lot of expensive and complex equipment. Equipment that doesn’t fit at home, or that I can’t afford for budgetary or legal reasons, is located at the nearest hospital’s lab, where I also work as head of a pharmacological research group. I regularly use this equipment in my experiments.

DB: Out of curiosity, how much would it cost to fully recreate your home laboratory?

AS: Well, first, besides the lab, I have a storage of reagents and chemicals at home—about 15,000 different chemicals and compounds. Collecting such a “collection” is already a costly endeavor. I’ve been gathering these materials for a very long time. Some substances have been in storage since the start of my career at Dow. Some came from the university and hospital labs where I work. Many were supplied by outside organizations, from the DEA to various environmental groups. The former provided reagents for tests and experiments on synthesizing analogs of market drugs. The latter simply offered me reagents and materials deemed dangerous for one reason or another—“explosive, toxic, carcinogenic,” and so on. In the end, only a small portion of my storage was purchased personally. Overall, it’s a very convenient system for a poor scientist like me.

DB: Surely, there are some substances in your collection that are hard to get “just like that,” which you had to search for and acquire?

AS: Often, if I encounter such a situation, instead of searching for the reagent, I try to synthesize it or a similar structural analog myself. Fortunately, I have all the necessary equipment and many reagents for this. In extreme cases, it’s sometimes easier to buy the raw materials and synthesize the substance from them.

DB: Could you explain in more detail what you consider organic synthesis?

AS: Essentially, it’s like cooking, but with a lot of nuances. As in cooking, you follow a recipe using the right tools. I take a reagent, prepare it by heating, filtering, and other procedures, adding new ingredients that also require preparation. Following a specific sequence, I, like a chef, gradually turn several ingredients into a completely new “dish” with properties different from the original material. Of course, you have to pay attention to many more details, but as with cooking, experience comes with time and repetition. The same goes for synthesizing entirely new substances. Like a chef, I understand my ingredients and tools. Using this knowledge and experimenting, I create entirely new, unique “dishes.”

DB: So, the process in the lab is more creative for you than strictly scientific?

AS: I’d say chemistry for me is like composing new music, or something like that. I try to combine different substances like musical tones, changing their sequence and mixing them in new ways if something doesn’t fit the overall picture. Of course, it’s just an analogy, but there’s something rhythmic and musical in this work.

DB: How would you describe your personal attitude toward the substances you create? In your books, you mention sometimes calling them your children.

AS: That’s another apt metaphor for my work. Conducting experiments, “playing” with different substances and tools, I get something new, unexpected, even alien to our planet. Maybe in distant worlds, such substances are common, but here on Earth, they are unexpected, foreign guests. They don’t exist in nature here. So each new creation is something completely unexplored. Many times in my career I’ve wondered about the properties of a new crystal or liquid that appeared almost by accident. What are you, mysterious crystal? Maybe a new psychedelic? Maybe just salt? A cleaning agent or something else? Should I treat you with awe or disgust? My experience tells me a new compound can be anything: a new entheogen that could save millions or a powerful hallucinogen that even an experienced psychonaut could barely handle, as even a small dose could keep the mind in illusions for days. That’s how I felt about MDMA or DO compounds, which eventually became public. And that’s just the beginning of getting to know my new “child.” If it’s truly a psychedelic, how should it be used? What dose? A gram? A milligram? A microgram? Should it be used at all for medical or recreational purposes? As a scientist, I have to conduct the first test on myself. Carefully, I begin a dialogue with my creation, gradually learning its nature, trying to understand its unique language.

DB: So you always tested new substances on yourself first?

AS: Yes, as I said. From the very beginning and to this day.

DB: Of course, that makes sense from the creator’s perspective, but doesn’t this approach violate scientific and medical ethics?

Ann Shulgin: Only the formal ethics of modern science and medicine, but nothing more.

DB: Have you ever had a truly difficult or unpleasant experience testing your new creations?

AS: Of course. In particular, I’d mention one experience with a complex compound from the 2CT group. I created this compound quite a while ago, about 25 years back. The paradox was that the experience was surprisingly pleasant and euphoric—so much so that during the trip, I realized I didn’t want to leave that state. I felt complete control over reality, that everything was in its place and perfect. An amazing feeling, especially the first time. It’s hard to put into words. You look at a cat, smile at it, and it runs away as if by your will. And this feeling fills you, overwhelms you with pleasure and pure joy. Funny enough, at that moment, I thought maybe I’d done something wrong—broken the happiness switch in my body. “My God, what if this is forever? What would I do then? No, that wouldn’t be so great,” I thought, smiling and wondering how I’d do my work. Think about it: the feeling is wonderful, but what if it stays with you for life, never turning off? Despite all the joy, I felt a bit scared and sad. Altogether, it was very vivid and unusual.

DB: What do you think happens in the human body when someone takes a psychedelic?

AS: You know, many people—experts and users alike—see it like this: I take a substance, it produces certain effects—visual, auditory, tactile, and so on. I think that’s not quite accurate. The substance itself can never cause these effects. They are produced by the brain, based on deeply personal and subjective thoughts, feelings, and experiences. That’s why psychedelics always produce a “unique” and unrepeatable effect each time. It’s not surprising, since no one can fully return to a single state of consciousness or perception. This complex mix of feelings and perceptions comes and goes, just like all sensory experience. That’s how I see the effect of psychedelics: they simply open certain doors in the mind, behind which is a unique experience that, like a river, never repeats itself. That’s the miracle of psychedelics: they are a key that opens up experiences, memories, new ways of perceiving and understanding oneself and the world. Even with simpler substances like amphetamines and opiates, it’s not so much the substances themselves that cause addiction, but the perception of their users. For many, the effect may seem like a miracle, a “magic pill” containing a preserved version of some experience or feeling, but in reality, all these sensations—like a surge of strength or boundless pleasure—are simply produced by the brain reacting to such a “key.”

DB: So you support decriminalization of all possible psychoactive substances, since they can’t be “bad” or “good” by your definition?

AS: Yes, absolutely. I believe people should regulate their own use of any psychoactive substances and treat them with respect and responsibility, not rely on someone else’s instructions or laws. The US experience clearly shows how such bans, under “good intentions,” can be used to justify mass arrests, family separations, and wars with other countries. Strict criminalization only benefits corruption, nothing more.

DB: I suppose this means you have nothing against the fact that many of your inventions and discoveries, like MDMA, leaked from the lab and became public?

AS: In fact, even back in the 1970s, I wasn’t upset or surprised that this happened. Given the effect of the substance and humanity’s love for experimenting with the mind and perception, such a leak was only a matter of time. As I’ve probably mentioned, this event led to the criminalization of the substance, depriving the medical community of a very useful therapeutic tool that could have helped millions. However, even this didn’t diminish medical interest in the substance. The effects of MDMA remain strictly therapeutic. So I’m glad that some doctors, like the MAPS group (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) led by Dr. Rick Doblin, are working to achieve limited legalization. Even such a reform is important, as it allows scientists to study MDMA and expand knowledge of its therapeutic properties. It’s possible that over time, these efforts will be justified and regulators in the US and other countries will finally see that MDMA is a medicine, not a drug.

DB: So you believe that, step by step, the medical community can convince authorities to lift the ban on MDMA?

AS: If the authorities don’t ignore scientifically proven facts, then yes, reform from above is quite possible. The main thing is to remove the substance from Schedule I, since its formal placement there effectively blocks doctors from researching MDMA. If a substance is already listed as having no medical use, why allocate funds to study its effectiveness in therapy? If MDMA can be removed from this list, the facts about its properties will speak for themselves. Then, lifting the ban on its use will only be a matter of time, namely, the publication of documentary evidence of its effectiveness.

DB: Finally, what do you think about powerful prescription drugs, like various tranquilizers and painkillers, which are now relatively freely sold on the market despite sometimes severe side effects? Do they have a place in a world where all psychoactive substances are legalized, or are they just ineffective tools for deception and profit for authorities and corporations?

AS: As I’ve said, there are no “dangerous/safe,” “bad/good,” or “useful/useless” substances. They simply exist, and their structure gives them certain properties that humanity can use as it sees fit. Maybe such drugs aren’t maximally effective for their intended purpose, but they can perform a function. The same goes for antipsychotics and tranquilizers. While, unlike MDMA or LSD, they can’t help a person get to the root of their psychological problems and resolve them once and for all, they can relieve psychological tension, at least temporarily. If these drugs help those in need without causing harm, their use can be justified. The same goes for opiate drugs used as painkillers. The main thing is to use them in moderation and appropriately, to avoid addiction and severe side effects.