Susannah Cahalan on the Psychedelic Pioneer Rosemary Woodruff Leary
"She was a behind-the-scenes character who was propping up [Timothy] Leary," says the author of The Acid Queen.

Rosemary Woodruff Leary is remembered—if she's remembered at all—as a muse, fugitive, and heavily indicted co-conspirator in Timothy Leary's psychedelic revolution of the 1960s and '70s. But her story is far more complex than that. A true believer in the mind-expanding potential of LSD, a master of the elusive art of "set and setting," and a woman determined to live a remarkable life, Rosemary was a countercultural icon in her own right.
Susannah Cahalan is the author, most recently, of The Acid Queen: The Psychedelic Life and Countercultural Rebellion of Rosemary Woodruff Leary. In June, Cahalan joined The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie to discuss Woodruff—what drove her to begin experimenting with psychedelics, what she saw in the tumult of postwar America, and why her legacy deserves more than a footnote in someone else's story.
Q: Who was Rosemary Woodruff Leary?
A: As much as I hate to start with Timothy Leary, we are starting with him—she was [his] third or fourth wife, depending on who you ask. She was a seeker. She was a behind-the-scenes character who was propping up Leary, working with him on his speeches, sewing his clothing, helping him create an image.
She was also very much a true believer in the role that psychedelics could play in not only expanding consciousness but actually making society better. She was called the Queen of Set and Setting—the mindset that you bring into a trip, and the environment. Rosemary was very good at making people feel grounded and supported.
Q: What drove her to move to New York and start experimenting with drugs? What was she seeking that she wasn't getting in her hometown of St. Louis?
A: She had always talked about herself in these mythic terms. She saw herself as someone who was going to live a great life—with a capital G, Great. She wasn't going to find that in St. Louis. She was attracted to "great men"—these genius archetypes. That's what she found in New York. Through being in this scene, she was able to express some of those sides of herself.
Q: What was going on in postwar America where this type of thing was even taking place?
A: I think there's a lot of overlap with today. There was a sense of insecurity. Some people responded to that insecurity and fear by having a lot of children, being very family focused. And other people started questioning the nature of their reality and the role of society.
They were still kind of caught up. Rosemary described how Timothy—despite all of his talk of revolution of the mind and [how he] was going to upend society—was the kind of man who put his hand out and expected to have a martini glass put in it.
Q: And that was part of the function that she served, right? She kept the rooms clean, helped organize, fed people.
A: It's been an interesting thing, talking about Rosemary in today's culture, where there seems to be this idea that either you have to be a tradwife or a girlboss. She wasn't either of those. Yes, she was stuck with a position that oftentimes she resented. But she actually did really enjoy taking care of other people. She was genuinely really good at taking care of people and beautifying spaces, too.
Q: What is the message that you might bring to a contemporary person reading this?
A: The thing I hope people take away from it is that she was complicated. She doesn't fit into these ideas of what a woman should be or how she should use her power. She was more like all of us, who are complicated. We sometimes pick people who aren't great for us. Or we love people who are damaged and damaging. And that doesn't make her any less worthy of a biography.
This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nick, how is TDS on LSD?
Acronymonial.
I wish I loved anything as much as Nick loves drugs and criminals.
I don't understand these fixations on drugs. Sure, get the government out of the way. Get rid of all contraband laws. But why fixate on it so much? The reason.org website has categories for all sorts of major areas -- transportation, pensions, schools, housing, even individual freedom -- and drug policy? Why not have one on, I dunno, zoning -- oh wait, that's covered under housing. Why not cover drugs under individual freedom?
Nope, I do not understand this emphasis and fixation on drug prohibition.
There’s nothing wrong with the focus on drug policy because it is extremely harmful and creates a ton of waste. What Reason actually does that I find odd is celebrate drug users and drug usage. Just because I think you should be allowed to make whatever choices about what substances you use on your own body doesn’t mean I find all choices equally laudable.
It’s like ENB being upset that sex workers are “stigmatized.” But of course they should be-it should never be a desirable career path for your little girl to aspire to. Just because you have a freedom to make the choice doesn’t mean it needs to be celebrated.
Correct. Libertarians are in favor of the freedom to engage in such activities. Socializing the costs of drugs and bad behaviors is not libertarian. They celebrate irresponsible vice rather than simply asserting the right to responsibly engage in it.
Perhaps their (L) stands for Libertine.
Which is kinda like Libertarian, but without any responsibility or consequences.
There is that celebration of drugs (and booze; remember those series about cocktails, historical cocktails, forgotten cocktails, favorite cocktails?). But the right to imbibe drugs is such a small part of so many individual rights. Why not have a whole category for home care -- energy and water efficiency mandates which make furnaces, water heaters, dish washers, and other appliances so expensive that the 5% efficiency gains will never pay for the added cost, regulating ICE leaf blowers and lawn mowers and chain saws, oil-based house paints, pressure-treated wood for decks, Roundup and other pesticides and fertilizers? I imagine far more people are affected by those restrictions than not being able to buy peyote at the local supermarket.
Drugpsychedelics freedom is such a narrow niche, especially now with pot so readily available, legally, that being its own top-level category is just weird."regulating ICE leaf blowers and lawn mowers and chain saws"
Whoa, whoa, whoa. ICE is using lawn mowers and chainsaws now? Good God. NPR was right all along.
ICE leaf blowers might be like those Palestinian pagers, courtesy of the Mossad.
Yes, more people are affected by those issues, but not as severely. If water heaters, etc. were criminalized in the manner of narcotics and psychedelics it'd be a different story.
Don't laugh... banning water heaters is a primordial credo of the Powerhouse Temple of the Presumptuous Assumption of Sharknado Warmunism, albeit in the less-hyped Apocrypha of the divine cult.
Care to translate that into something that makes sense? Thanks.
Comstocker
Perhaps you are unaware that California at least has banned the cheap effective water heaters and furnaces, and several cities, and possibly states, have banned all gas appliances. That affects far more people than psychedelics. Then add in ICE lawn mowers and so on, Roundup, and whatever else they feel like, is far more than a bunch of acidheads.
It may affect them, but how many are going to jail over it?
It's true that it's weird as a top-level category. It's not so weird if you think of it as part of the category of regulation of pharmaceuticals and health care generally. Narcotics is a prominent peak of pain treatment, which is a large land mass in terms of cartelization of medicine; that's a large part of the reason it turns up so ostentatiously. Similarly psychedelics and psychiatry. DIY vs. needing to see licensed pros, who in turn are under legal scrutiny.
This is why we have someone here going on and on about nose flutes.
Opium is the term for ALL addictive drugs, and its banning the prime mover of both Opium wars (and as side effect, the Panic of 1837), then the Christian Taeping Rebellion with 25 million dead. The Boxer Revolt was barely over when Teedy Rosenfeld tortured and killed enough Filipinos to become China's desirable ally, so U.S. exports were boycotted in 1905. In exchange for lifting that, TR enlisted the Hague as a vector for prohibition laws. His successor added hemp and coca to Satan's list and Balkan gluts escalated to WW1.
Great. Put psychedelics under the health care category.
Doesn't explain why it has its own top level category. Doesn't explain why the magazine and Nick spend so much effort on psychedelics and other drugs.
Another reason is that it's a gnomon for libertarianism. Libertarians agree with lots of other people of various ideologies on various policy subjects, but are practically alone on drug policy. So we use it as a way to identify radical libertarians.
Because one way to push back is at the social level. Drugs are stigmatized because society is against them, so one way to reduce oppression of their users is to get society to be more in favor of their use.
Basically the undercurrent of individual liberty in society is not strong enough to carry against strong opinions that certain things are just bad. So the job is to convince enough people that they're less bad, enough that the sentiment for individual liberty can tip the balance. Libertarianism never wins on its own, down thru the ages, only in alliance with other interests.
Sort of true. The kleptocracy parties are so nearly identical that a 2% shift in votes can cause the less libertarian half to lose--as in 2016, but even in the 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, republican mobs mugged and bloodied third-party candidates for "spoiling" their power grabs and finally added Prohibition to the Constitution. Few recall that Tim Leary eliminated many acid indictments in Dallas in 1969. In Canada, Peru and Brazil I followed his peregrinations through Africa and Europe with great interest. Today's looters understand the LP as a threat to coercion.
Wholly agree. I've done most of those drugs in the past when I was younger and dumber, and it's not a lifestyle to 'celebrate' by my own first hand experience. In fact I knew some people who are now dead as a result of that 'life style'.
In my view, it's fine enough to experiment with various drugs but once it becomes your 'culture' you're basically done with life.
The same goes for prostitution. People should be free to live that way, but if we're totally honest the people who do that don't do it by choice even if they've deluded themselves into thinking that's their best way forward. OnlyFans and things like it might make it safer and attach less stigma to the practice, but it's no less destructive because of a change in venue.
When you become convinced your best contribution to society is taking off your clothes or having sex with random strangers, you've given up on yourself and have accepted your role as little more than a living flesh light; there simply for the pleasure of those who have achieved the things you never will.
Simple: There was a self-aware minority interested in it whose interest was under repression. We already had black liberation, women's liberation, and others, so...hippie and junkie liberation. It was the issue that brought me into the libertarian movement over half a century ago.
"It was the issue that brought me into the libertarian movement over half a century ago."
There's the problem. This was a relevant, very forward-thinking argument in the 60s/70s when a bunch of cops would give you the wood shampoo for smoking weed behind the bleachers. Now I get to dodge comotose-to-violent drug zombies on every street corner in America and the police don't do a thing because it's their "personal" choice.
The 60s are over. Boomers are the greatest plague on this nation since slavery. Until libertarians prove to me they support real consequences for abusing drugs in public, I have no more interest in their ohsoedgy crusade.
Except, that wasn't primarily the problem I saw. Daddy was a doctor, and I was influenced to begin with by what he said, which was, "Give them what they want, and they won't bother you." He wasn't referring to cannabis, which he'd consumed as a med student in Switzerland in the 1930s; they dipped tobacco cigs into hash oil. He meant he favored maintaining junkies medically on opiates. He did not favor simple legalization, which I came to favor, because he thought it should not be that easy for regular folks to obtain opiates, but that doctors (like him — but not him) should be in charge of giving them to "addicts". Of course such a policy incentivizes people to act helpless, to be "addicted", but most people, even doctors, just don't see or understand that, thinking instead of "addiction" as a discrete medical condition rather than a complex of acts of will that have some medical consequences.
In the 1927 Report of the First Annual Conference of the Committees of the World Conference on Narcotic Education and International Narcotic Educational Association, Clarence Owens recorded an observation of Tibetan border coolies smoking cigarettes that smelled normal but changed coolie demeanor. Hearsay had it the smokes were "soaked in an opium solution." Acetylmorphine is in truth an opium solution if dissolved. "Heroes for Hire" is a pre-code movie about how repatriated addicted POWs were treated after being wounded in the "Great War"
I've long thought that the notion of treating addiction as a disease is absurd since addiction is not in any form a disease.
If they want to label it as a psychiatric disorder it would make at least partial sense, but even that doesn't fit.
What we call 'addiction' is more or less a collection of behaviors and choices none of which, taken individually, could be said to present as a disease or mental health issue. Certainly if one abuses drugs long enough you will end up with diseases and mental health issues, but those are an effect not so much a cause.
I will admit at least some people with mental health issues 'self medicate' with various illicit narcotics, but notably plenty of those issues are resolved with targeted drugs that actually do something whereas heroin can not be said to have any positive effects on, say, a paranoid schizophrenic. Those people are the exception, not the rule.
Look at the name of the video.
That's it. That's the explanation. They have equated one with the other. Like gays, the druggies have made that singular characteristic the whole of their entire identity. That's the identity politic for them.
If they're not druggies, then they're not counterculture - at which point they don't know who or what they are anymore.
Sez Harry Anslinger 2.0...
What is amusing are Democrats who think they are counter-culture not noticing that their 'culture', such as it is, is very mainstream. They are firmly stuck in the 1960's-1980's and can't escape that era even if they wanted to, which they don't. Pluggo is one such example, who is stuck in time and hasn't noticed that all the people he claims to hate the most have joined the political party he claims to prefer.
These days, if you want to be an edgy counter culture type you vote conservative. The whole thing gives me a headache since 'conservative' being counter culture is insane at it's base level, yet here we are.
Also amusing that young men are leaving the Democrat party in droves. It's almost like what's happening over at Disney, where they suddenly realized that young men made up the overwhelming majority of their audience and constantly demonizing them caused them to leave the franchise leaving them with a core group of people who don't even go watch movies as their 'fans'.
Democrats are self-selecting men and sane women out of their party, and last I checked men make up about 50% of the electorate. I won't opine on what share goes to sane women, but any number of them ruins the Democrat model.
Unless every last woman leaves the Republican party and goes whole hog Democrat, they have fucked themselves and it'll take at least a generation to unfuck it. I predicted long ago now that the trans issue would be the straw that broke their camels back, and I haven't seen anything since to disabuse me of that notion.
These days, if you want to be an edgy counter culture type you vote conservative.
Super edgy. Because there's a good chance now you'll be killed for it.
Say what one will about the conservatives of yesteryear, but they didn't go offing the hippies in their effort to conserve against the rise of the counterculture. Which, as you point out, is now the mainstream so who do they think they're even countering anymore.
Now they're all just this bish: https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1971037426845090218
Yea fight the power fatso fivehead.
Rosemary sounds fundamentally and tragically sad: looking for fulfillment outside of herself. Like most "seekers". And all Marxists.
Good God. What's next, Joan Baez' dry cleaner? This doesn't even rise to the level of 'Albert Einstein's Wife Was The Real Genius.'
I'm starting to believe they only keep Nick around so they can read the comments.
Psychedelics, Strang Whamins and countercultural chic. Sounds like a real Enlightenmentgasm. Wake me up when it's over.
I'm still not real clear on what the Strang Whamin did that's interesting enough that anyone would want to plow through her biography.
She's cashing in on someone else's notoriety because she has none on her own merits, which seems fitting since that type of woman is very popular in leftist circles right now.
Basically, tear down the male icon and revise history until the strong woman that was tangentially connected becomes the real hero even though they did absolutely nothing whatsoever and risked nothing whatsoever to earn any notoriety whatsoever.
Say what you will about Leary, but he took risks which is how his name became known in the first place. There's a reason no one knows who this woman is.
Thanks sooo much. This is one of Nick's best interviews, even if the Ku Klux Klan and George Wallace party fail to appreciate it. They are, of course, free to go somewhere else, buy and burn Beatles albums.
The CIA was directly involved in the spread of LSD as they were with the crack cocaine epidemic in L.A.
Behind every buffoon man there was a buffoon woman.