Also on p. 49, we are told "'This was so unlike him…he was so careful.'" But on p. 47 we are informed that Joshua "drank hard," "smoked pot constantly," and, when tripping on LSD, "always took more than anyone else." (In fairness, I should note that the LD-50 of LSD is unknown, and that 10 hits of today's LSD most often equals 1 hit of LSD from the 1960s – Joshua's usage was hardly "crazy stuff.") We are also informed of Joshua's history of dealing drugs. None of this is said in judgment of him but he clearly operated with a mindset that included taking large amounts of drugs frequently, and a mindset that he was immune to danger. (Not particularly sins in a teenager, but a largely contributing factor to his death – call it the Jim Morrison phenomenon.)

A number of minor errors reveal the author's grasp of his subject. MDMA was not originally synthesized to aid psychological research – it was originally synthesized in 1912 by the German company Merck as a possible precursor for other chemicals. 2C-T-7 is not twelve times as potent as mescaline - it is roughly 30 times as potent as mescaline, a minimal dose of 2C-T-7 being 10 milligrams and a minimal dose of mescaline being 300 milligrams. This in itself is meaningless, as, by comparison, 2C-T-7 is 400 times less potent than LSD, an active dose of LSD being as low as 25 micrograms for low-level stimulation and cannabis-like phenomena. As far as government awareness of 2C-T-7 and the other new, synthetic psychedelics (as well as a variety of newly discovered or rediscovered botanical psychedelics), there are a constantly growing number of psychoactive drugs, and government agencies can hardly be expected to be aware of all of them. (Which reveals the utter stupidity of our present drug-control policy.)

The assertion that 2C-T-7 is "highly dangerous in ways that are still not understood" is at best a hypothetical statement, and directly contradicts Mr. Boal's statement on p. 5 that the deaths do not "indict" 2C-T-7. It may have unknown side effects, or the deaths may be explainable in other manners. (Which appears likely for at least two of the three deaths.) The statement of Kate Mallikaris of the Office of Demand Reduction at the ONDCP ("it's another one of those damn synthetics") can hardly inspire confidence in the scientific knowledge of drugs of those administering our present system for "controlling" them. Contrary to the impression conveyed by the article, 2C-T-7 is currently quite difficult to obtain nationwide, and is unlikely to become a significant drug abuse problem.

There are a couple of reasons for this. It's market demand is not going to be as high as that for LSD, MDMA, or other illegal synthetic psychedelic substances. If it is made illegal, underground chemists are not going to make an unpopular substance in large quantities. While it is true that 2C-T-7 has appeared on the rave scene it has not proved popular there. I have spoken to more than one member of the "scene" who reported their own experiences with 2C-T-7 (usually labeled "beautiful" apparently a reference to the drug's visual and euphoric effects) as well as the experiences of friends. I have spoken to people who have used 2C-T-7 orally, nasally, inhaled as smoke, and/or by intravenous injection.

Doses have been varied, but most of them have been moderately high to very high. One girl that I spoke with had used an oral dose of 115 mg. and called the experience "beautiful." (The substance having apparently justified its reputation.) Nearly all preferred MDMA – several had taken 2C-T-7 under the impression that it was "like X" and were somewhat surprised at the result. I received several reports of freak-outs or near freak-outs on the substance.

Further, its association with the three deaths has caused many people to become wary of it. One girl that I spoke with, who had used 2C-T-7 once, felt that it should definitely be made illegal, though she was in favor of the legalization of substances such as LSD, MDMA, cannabis, methamphetamine, etc. To be fair, I did receive a number of reports indicating ecstatic experiences with this substance. Five people reported using a dose of 35 mg IN and being quite impressed with the results. None reported significant health problems, though one of them did "freak out" in response to a friend of his (on the same dose) who was having an apparent psychotic break.

I received reports of five others who had used this dose and method of administration, at the end of a MDMA experience, and all reported getting violently ill (projectile vomiting) and not enjoying their trips. None reported psychotic breaks or any significant health problems. I spoke to one individual who reported using 80 milligrams intranasally over the course of "a night" (6 hour period) and reported no "body load" at all.

"Almost uniformly people have felt that their experiences were worth it but only four reported a pronounced desire to use the substance again."

Several people did not feel that 2C-T-7's effects justified it’s price (up to $425 per gram, which is 30 to 50 full doses – a fact left out of Mr. Boal's article, perhaps to make 2C-T-7 sound more like cocaine). One psychonaut described it to me as "fluff."

The assertion that "the difference between a safe dose and an overdose is no more than a few specks," is quite relative to the user (their sensitivity) and the circumstances (other drugs that may be present in their system and route of administration). In discussing Alexander Shulgin's reaction to Joshua Robbins' dose and route of ingestion ("That's just suicidal") I do think it pertinent to point out that Shulgin appears to be more sensitive to phenethylamines than many others. (This does not justify Joshua choosing such a large dose for his initial experience.)