> What fallacy is being committed here?

Concluding that he wouldn't been the same successful person without doing LSD. There's no evidence of causation. That's the fallacy.

I'm not sure why so many people are excited about this, it seems like a cheap pro-legalization play in light of his death.

> Concluding that he wouldn't been the same successful person without doing LSD. There's no evidence of causation. That's the fallacy.

Who's making that conclusion? As far as I can tell, nobody's attributing his success entirely to LSD. I'm sure he'd have been successful without it. But a person is a product of their experiences, and he plainly states that LSD factored strongly into it. You can disbelieve him, but I don't know why one would have trouble believing that.

I tend to agree that this is only getting so much play right now because of the Jobs connection, which is getting annoying for some, but that doesn't make the points being made any less valid.

> Who's making that conclusion?

Everyone who even brings up that he used LSD as a point of interest. At least that's the implication being made.

> that doesn't make the points being made any less valid.

No, the points are not valid. That's why we have a scientific method that proves causation.

It's the exact same fallacy that someone falls into with e.g. alternative medicine. A person's cancer went into remission while they were eating tree bark. They are free to believe it helped them, but that doesn't mean it's scientifically, or even remotely, the case. Taking their word for it doesn't make it true.

The notion that psychadelics affect a person's outlook is not that great a leap to make, and others have already posted links to studies supporting that. While I'm not asserting that LSD was the lynchpin to his success, I really don't see that it's the same as alternative medicine at all.