Jump to content

Talk:History of LSD/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Resistance and proscription

History of LSD#Resistance and proscription is very, very POV at present. needs a rewrite imo --Kaini 04:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph detailing LSD's first synthesis was factually inaccurate, details have been changed to more accurately represent what actually happened

Citations

I have provided references for the facts flagged. Would anyone object to removing the banner claiming this article does not cite its sources? Turkeyphant 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Facetious sentence

Under "Resistance and prohibition," the following sentence is jocose: "There are no bad trips, only bad people." That is slightly funny -- I've sometimes thought about replying to someone's tentative "This is a stupid question..." with, "There are no stupid questions, only stupid people," -- but obviously any kind of contextual joke is out of place here. I'll delete the sentence shortly if no one rises to object. Dratman 04:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No Objection. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Reminds me of a quote from Timothy Leary and Terence McKenna: "LSD is a drug that occasionally causes psychotic behavior in people who have not taken it." —Viriditas | Talk 01:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This article should be flagged for citations

I'm curious why there would not be a flag at the top of this article for citations, or at least in-text citations. The "Government Experiments" and "History" (of recreational use) sections are filled with claims that require citations, and there's not even a single citation in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellenwright (talk • contribs) 06:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

doctor/lsd

I have a friend who insists that once someone has ingested LSD they are no longer eligible to become a surgeon or be in any medical profession aside from Gen. Practitioner. Personally I dont buy it. But Ive heard it asserted by a few people over the years and I wonder at both the verity of the claim and, if false, where the rumour got started. thanks.

FROM ANONYMOUS: I'm currently in medical school. I have done significant quantities of LSD and continue to do so. I don't suffer flashbacks. I'm doing just fine in my surgery rotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.129.166 (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvious urban legend. Look it up. Turkeyphant 02:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Psychiatric uses

The mention of UK psychiatric uses says, "but Dr Spencer was the last member of the medical staff to use it". Who's Dr Spencer? --Ashawley (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be added in: "After Dr Sandison left the hospital in 1964, medical superintendent Dr Arthur Spencer took over and used the drug until he retired in 1972." Turkeyphant 02:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

another citation needed, at least

"LSD overdose was suggested as a possible cause in the still-unsolved deaths of CSIRO scientists Dr Gilbert Bogle and his lover Dr Margaret Chandler, whose naked bodies were found beside the Lane Cove River in Sydney after a New Year's Eve party in on January 1, 1963."

This is an interesting claim. Suggested by whom? And why is it considered valid enough to include? Especially as there is little to no evidence anywhere that one CAN overdose on LSD in this manner. In addition, there are better, more data-based theories about these deaths. It appears that industrial pollution (hydrogen sulfide in particular, released from a body of water) is currently considered the most likely culprit.24.17.180.126 (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Without a citation, this is just weasel words. Turkeyphant 02:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Leary

"While it is true that Leary's experiments did not lead to any murders, he wilfully chose to ignore the bad trips which occurred, as well as the attempted suicide of a woman the day after she was given mescaline by Leary."

I think perhaps the second half of this sentence warrants a deletion. Not only does it put the neutrality of the article into question, but the article is about about LSD, not mescaline, which is an entirely different chemical altogether. All the statement does is call the character of Timothy Leary into question which is, at the least, irrelevant, if not biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.151.60 (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

Under the section "Resistance and prohibition", underneath the quote it says: "They fail to mention that these "adverse reactions" are almost exclusively the result of a "psychedelic" dose", which seems as if the writer were offended by the conclusion which the government had come to. I suggest the paragraph be re-written in a more unbiased fashion, but if I'm wrong feel free to say why.

Reversion of new additions

A very small explanation for my revert of new additions by User:Jasonstephensbrighton can be found here. In almost every case, Jasonstephensbrighton added statements that were not supported by the sources, and then went on to add quotes to support these statements that were taken completely out of context. The strangest thing, is that not only were the statements themselves unsupported, but the quotes did not support the claims they were supposed to illustrate! This is some of the strangest editing I've seen in years. If anyone wants to discuss my reversion, I would be happy to explain in more detail. Viriditas (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge with LSD

Why is this a separate article? Should be a "History" section of the LSD article. Also sections on Aldous Huxley etc could just be links to the main pages of "notable individuals". Now there is a lot of repetition of information on different pages. Tova Hella (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the LSD article is already a bit long, but I've added a brief history section, which it really needed. --Utility Monster (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose merge for above reason. New user needs to familiarize themselves with WP:SUMMARY. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I have changed my mind about this. Good that we now have a summary History section on the LSD mainpage.

Name Change to "History of Serotonergic Psychedelics"

Would be nice to have a page on the history of serotonergic psychedelics. Most of the topics discussed here also apply to psilocybin, mescaline, etc. Examples:

  • Hofmann also identified psilocybin and other natural psychedelics.
  • Psychedelic psychiatrists also used mescaline, psilocybin, DPT, etc.
  • Huxley wrote about mescaline (Doors of Perception) and mushrooms (Island).
  • Leary was originally inspired by mushrooms and used psilocybin in the Good Friday Experiment.
  • MKULTRA also tested other psychedelics.
  • Drug prohibition laws affected other psychedelics together with LSD.

Furthermore, many important points are missed by focusing on LSD:

  • Most scientific research (human, animal) since 1970 has used other psychedelics rather than LSD.
  • The Western experience with mescaline, etc before LSD.
  • Many recreational users now take psilocybin, etc rather than LSD.
  • There is a 5000+ year old living tradition of ritualistic use of natural psychedelics.

The history of LSD makes more sense in the wider context of the history of serotonergic psychedelics. Right now this page is overly fixated on details from "The Sixties". Tova Hella (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Acid House in the 1990s

wasn't that really all about the emergence of Ecstasy as a recreational drug? Not sure LSD had all that much to do with it (despite the name). There's no reference in the article for the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.214.14 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Grateful Dead/Deadhead subculture of the 1980s represents a HUGE oversight here in the leap from the 1970s to the 1990s. Not only in terms of a resurgence in popularity but also a nationwide distribution chain, a targeted DEA campaign, hundreds of arrests, and controversy over mandatory minimum sentencing based on amounts of drugs that included the weight of the carrier medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.223.188 (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone had deleted Hoffman's blockquoted descriptions of its effects under the "Discovery" section and had replaced it with the text "LSD is highly addictive!!??!"

There was also a random, out-of-context insertion of "LSD is highly addictive" just before the sentence "He began to hypothesize..." under the "Psychiatric use" section.

Check the history for evidence of these problems. I've reverted these changes.

If people want to insert these lines, please insert them in the proper locations and have them properly sourced. 168.122.246.173 (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Cary Grant

Does Cary Grant really deserve the status of an influential individual in the history of LSD? His contribution may be notable, but he should hardly range among other people one would deem as influential. __meco (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He really does deserve the status. Think bout it - he is a "square" who endorses LSD in a "square" magazine as early as 1962. He was a respected household name who gave LSD a respected household name, right at the start of the phenomenon. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
But was his statements noticed? Obviously a lot of people read Time magazine, however, I'm looking for some evaluation in retrospect that this was an important event. __meco (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Time is a mass distribution, world magazine. They say the students he lectured to were 'fascinated' about his tale of LSD, and we all know that mass LSD use then started in Californian universities. That is enough for me. But we'll have to do a WP:3O if you're still not happy with it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Your reasoning smells of WP:SYNTH to me. I'm not going to press the issue though. Let's just wait and see if someone else weighs in their opinion. __meco (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - I always accept consensus. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Szara

This Hungarian psychiatrist seems to have been refused LSD by Sandoz in the 1950s, on grounds that Hungary was communist, according to the article on him. Can we get a cite for that and fold it in to this article? -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


this was written in the timeline - "2010 Possession of drugs including LSD legalized in Czech Republic" but, it's false, so i deleted it. Posession of small amounts is not a crime (that is - a people won't go to jail for posession of small amounts, but may be fined.) The new 2010 law only states what does it mean "small amount" - a formerly undefined term and adds makes some more substrances illegal, so it's actually more restrictive. It's common error even among Czech people that this small amount is legal to posess since Jan 2010, but it is not - it's still trespass against law, like driving a car too fast.


This may be a language problem. 'Possession' in anglophone legal terminology means small amounts. 'Possession' of cannabis is legal in the United Kingdom. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of psychoactive drugs and psychedelia

I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion. First, most of this is unreferenced. Second, a great deal of this has nothing to do with LSD, the subject of this article. What is relevant, and referenced, should be in the text of the article, not in a timeline like this. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "French Government Queries U.S. State Dept. about LSD Attack, Prompted by New Book Release". Prweb.com. Retrieved 2010-04-20.
  2. ^ Charles Groenendijk. "Eli Lilly, Zyprexa & The Bush Family (& the CIA MK-ULTRA LSD experiments)". AntidepressantsFacts. Retrieved 2010-04-20.
  3. ^ Monday, Dec. 19, 1955 (1955-12-19). "Medicine: Artificial Psychoses". TIME. Retrieved 2010-04-20.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ "Catalog of Copyright Entries. Third ... - Google Books". Books.google.com. Retrieved 2010-04-20.
  5. ^ a b "MAPS bulletin - volume xvii - number 1 - spring/summer 2007 - "The Chrysalis Stage" - LSD in Prague: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study". Maps.org. Retrieved 2010-04-20.
  6. ^ "How to Speak Hip - Skeyelab Music". Audio.skeyelab.com. Retrieved 2010-04-20.
  7. ^ a b Time. 1944-04-03 http://search.time.com/results.html?D=lsd&sid=126EC7303C9A&Ntt=lsd&Ntk=WithBody2009&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial%2bsnip%2bp_body%3a25&Ns=p_date_range. Retrieved 2010-05-04. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |0&N= ignored (help)
  8. ^ Nina Burleigh, A Very Private Woman: The Life and Unsolved Murder of Presidential Mistress Mary Meyer, New York: Bantam Books, 1998, p. 212.
  9. ^ spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, Mary Pinchot Meyer. Retrieved 1 March 2008.
  10. ^ a b "Merry Prankster History Project". Pranksterweb.org. Retrieved 2010-04-20.
  11. ^ LIFE Magazine. "LSD - Cover". Psychedelic-library.org. Retrieved 2010-04-20.
  12. ^ Markoff, John (2005). What the Dormouse Said: How the 60s Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry. The Penguin Group. ISBN 0-670-03382-0. pg. xviii-xix.
  13. ^ a b "Ryan Grim: Read the Never-Before-Published Letter From LSD-Inventor Albert Hofmann to Apple CEO Steve Jobs". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2010-04-20.
  14. ^ "UK | MI6 payouts over secret LSD tests". BBC News. 2006-02-24. Retrieved 2010-04-20.
  15. ^ a b "Charity pushes for LSD use in medicine By Andrew Jack". Maps.org. 2010-02-12. Retrieved 2010-04-20.
  16. ^ "Revealing the Mind Bender General". Speechification. 2009-04-06. Retrieved 2010-04-20.
  17. ^ "Drug Possession Legalized in the Czech Republic". Prague-guide.co.uk. 2010-01-19. Retrieved 2010-04-20.

Fingertip absorption

The "Discovery" section states that "While re-synthesizing LSD, he accidentally touched it with his fingers, and unknowingly touched his fingers to his mouth (he believed that he absorbed it through his fingers, but we now know that that is impossible).[4]" Is there any evidence that the parenthetical assertion is accurate/substantiated? The citation following the sentence leads to an article (from the BBC) which actually indicates that "Mr Hofmann ingested some of the drug through his fingertips." If there is no source for the "we now know that that is impossible," I advocate for its deletion. Can anyone corroborate/verify? CaptJJYossarian (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Hofmann's own account states that he was unsure how he came in direct contact with LSD since he is meticulous with regards to neat work habbits. He states it might have been possible that a small portion came in contact with his fingertips during the purification and crystallization phase. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest it did. During this time he is also unsure if the solution he made was the cause of his visions. It is not until he begins self-testing and takes the solution orally...

"4/19/43 16:20: 0.5 cc of 1/2 promil aqueous solution of diethylamide tartrate orally = 0.25 mg tartrate. Taken diluted with about 10 cc water. Tasteless." -Lab notebook

that he fully confirms the effects of LSD-25. Hofmann's book, LSD — My Problem Child, should be the primary reference for this section since it is his own personal account, including his laboratory notebook, of LSD's discovery. The BBC news article should not be used as a source given its limited information and lack of sources. A reference, not a viable replacement for the book, can be found here: http://www.hallucinogens.com/hofmann/child1.htm 75.43.214.60 (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of lysergic acid diethylamide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Influential Individuals

This is a grand article and it is always a pleasure to see all the hard work that is put into creating these pages. It seems however that the history of the modern chemists that put forth so much effort into developing this medication, studying it, bringing forth new intermediates, and pioneering more cost effective and faster reactions have faded from the memory of the world while the older generation of chemists get all the credit. Some of these chemist even gave up their freedom in order to promote understanding of the nature of this substance in a time when research groups would not touch the topic. I see the mention of Tim Skully but it was actually Nicholas Sand that was the true chemist that engineered the reactions used, and it was ALD-52 Skully was promoting not LSD proof via court records where it was argued that ALD-52 may degrade into LSD or that LSD as an intermediate may have been used to establish a conviction. What ever happened with the chemist Dr William Henderson known by many of his collegues as Dr Flowerchild throughtout the world, it's as if he simply vanished. His contribution alone is worth mentioning due to developing hundreds of intermediates and argon nitrogen innert reactions that now find themselves being used in the academic and pharmaceutical structures of society, the same society that seeks to hide his existence and donation to science by stiking his impact from any record in history because of his conflict against justice for the sake of science and his ties of helping promote and develop the Electric Daisy Carnival in order to provide a psychedelic testing ground for his therapeutic research upon willing participants. Casey Hardison, although a small contributor as a chemist is still very much like all the others whom risked everything to bring this substance to the world and for us to gain insight into its structure. David Nichols is also very much worth the respect to mention from Pardue University whom has been granted, by the federal government, the ability to be apart of the first United States Colleges to began testing the medication once again since it was deemed illegal. Without these hidden away chemists there would not be a movement to push for therapeutics during the time span from the 80s to the new millennium when the benefits of this substance was most suppressed. Agreed, there is somewhat of a history mentioned but it would seem that some expounding upon the topic should be desired for the sake of academic research assistance for all whom seek to explor this feild of study and to simply reward the more modern chemists in words for their contributions to science that has brought about a new generation that now has the tools to produce better therapeutic applications for this medication resultant only because of the unmentioned historical chemists denied by this article. If this comment is not signed properly I will do better next time, thanks and please feel free to add to this conversation please, all comments and criticism is welcomed and I will be more than happy to help in providing sources for what is claimed. simpletruths--Simpletruths (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Another idea is links added for the additional chemist to their own pages to keep this page uncluttered, or continue on with listing the individuals as the page already does. Simpletruths (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpletruths (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC) This is just an opinion but it would seem that the chemists that are mentioned in my preceeding paragraph are surely more influential than Cary Grant. Not to say Mr. Grant did not lend some type of role, however he surely never developed any reactions nor practiced any therapeutic research on willing individuals.Simpletruths (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We could add a "See also" section and link to these chemists as you describe above. If you have a list of names I can add it. This article could use some fleshing out. If you can locate some WP:Reliable sources you're welcome to contribute! Sizeofint (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of lysergic acid diethylamide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Bicycle Day should be directed to a disambiguation page

Now that the UN has designated 3.June as World Bicycle Day, I feel that instead of Bicycle Day being directed to this article, searching for Bicycle Day one should land on a disambiguation page with a link to World Bicycle Day and another to this article on the History of lysergic acid diethylamide. Any counter-arguments ? Morten7an (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The Pretty Things and £.s.d.

Looking at the individual articles Get the Picture? (The Pretty Things album), Come See Me (The Pretty Things song), and Pretty Things discography#Singles, this article here has the date wrong. The song £.s.d. was never on their 1965 album Get the Picture? back in the day and was only added as a bonus to it for its 80s, 90s, or even later re-issue on CD. Originally, there was no evidence of the song's existence up until their promo film A Day in the Life of the Pretty Things aka The Pretty Things on Film that had been shot in January 1966 and includes an overdubbed live performance of the song, but the promo film was hardly released back in the day (only being shown in one single cinema for a couple of weeks sometime in 1966 to little public attendance or notice) up until the 1990s or even later. The single £.s.d. was eventually released in April 1966 as the B-side to Come See Me. --2003:EF:1700:B478:F937:385E:EE03:7C32 (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"inventing a word"? Rhetorically, Is it patented, copyrighted?

More erudition. Perhaps "coined" 98.144.238.191 (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Not "promoting" an idea. It is "promulgating".

Lack of erudition is appalling. 98.144.238.191 (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Opening image

Change from blotter paper to an image of bottle of Rx Delysid. This is "History" Of LSD reddit. 98.144.238.191 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Bicycle Day

I removed the subsection titled "Bicycle day" as it was highly tangential. There is already an appropriate reference to "Bicycle Day" in the section titled "Discovery and history". TR166ER (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Roberts should be cited as he coined this phrase Turkeyphant 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

last paragraph claims ingestion was on the 16th - which conflicts with first paragraph which states original event was on 19th § — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:4A1:EA70:CD8:C3DA (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_LSD/Archive_1&oldid=1254338887"