Talk:LSD/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about LSD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

blotter paper

I cant find an article on blotter paper. Should one be made if not already?

Older discussion

A Winner of the August 2004 West Dakota Prize

This entry has won the West Dakota Prize for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.

http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/effects.htm

A very rare experience. Total loss of visual connection with reality. The senses cease to function in the normal way. Total loss of self. Transcendental experiences of cosmic unity Merging with space, other objects, or the universe. Out of body experience. Ecstasy. "Entity contact". The loss of reality becomes so severe that it defies explanation. Pure white light. Difficult to put into words.

That sounds like Ketamine. Anyone have some more info on this? Like how high of a dose would be needed to produce an out of body experience with LSD or how often it happens? --Arm

To commentors and editors: please bear in mind that the proper abbreviation for microgram is "mcg" or "μg". The abbreviation, "mg," means milligram. There is quite a difference, as 1 mg = 1000 μg. This may seem a picky detail, but for the sake of precision it should be observed.

Why is "hallucinogenic" in quotation marks throughout the article? Is there really any question that LSD induces hallucinations?

-kwertii

Yes. From this eMedicine link, LSD's effects are best characterized as pseudohallucinations. Merriam-Webster defines hallucinations as "Perception of visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or gustatory experiences without an external stimulus and..." Now, LSD distorts external stimuli and usually doesn't superimpose imaginary elements onto external stimuli. You won't see a green monster a la Hulk standing on the sidewalk unless there's some(thing/one) already present there. DMT can do that, though. Gyan

In my not-so-humble opinion, this particular piece of medical terminology is less than informative. If John and George can look at a tiny glowing light and think that their elevator is on fire, then perhaps the distinction is not so clear cut. [insert the sound of a wry grin]

Anville 22:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The key word being "think". LSD is a mind-manifesting drug, and can amplify certain thoughts, especially fear. Once a panic thought arises (i.e. "I think the elevator is on fire!!!") it can be hard to suppress. Set and setting. A medium to high dose combined with a fear trigger (fire is a very strong fear trigger) can certainly lead to a state of panic. --Thoric 00:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I Think LSD is the best creation in the world. I have been using for 25 years now and it has improved my general well-being. Painting, creativeness and thought patterns are improved imensely. I take it in Drop form and about 300mg each time. I understand why it is illegal. Parties and acid do not improve yourself but lsd and mental thoughts make you more intelliget. I can see different situations from all different angles when confronted with situations..So..yes i believe it can be benificial to some people only

It certainly hasn't done your spelling any good.

Over the past several years, the potency of LSD obtained during drug law enforcement operations in the United States has ranged between 20 and 80 micrograms per every 50 micrograms

160% purity ? Are you sure it's per 50ug not per 100ug ?

Here is the original quote from the DEA (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/lsd/lsd-4.htm):

Over the past several years, the potency of LSD obtained during drug law enforcement operations has ranged between 20 and 80 micrograms per dosage unit. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) recognizes 50 micrograms as the standard dosage unit equivalency.

That just describes how much drug is in each "hit" and 50 mg is some kind of average dose. Not anything about purity of drug as delivered. I presume the mean 50 mg of pure (100%) LSD per each hit. ---rmhermen

Dr. Bob, can you send the image to jasonr@bomis.com? Or just ask Jason for the URL of that upload page (I don't have it myself)?

I am idly wondering how many people with doctorates are working on Wikipedia. If it's a very large number, that could be a very good PR statistic. (This isn't to say that people without Ph.D.'s are not welcome, of course!) --LMS

I've added reference to the rabbit hyperthermia model which is one of the common sources of "numbers" concerning relative potencies. Kaet (aka Dr. Kaet, :)).

Article read "(Despite rulings that the First Amendment protects religions even if they do not make sense, courts today tend to reject such defenses in "drug" cases.)" -- not only is that very U.S.-centric, it's not NPOV, and completely fails to understand the U.S. Supreme Court's logic. -- SJK

LSD (Libra, Solidi, Denarii) is also the common abbreviation for the British money system prior to 1971. There is obviously potential for ambiguity here when we get round to doing an article on British Coinage. -- Derek Ross

SJK, if you mean the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that the state does not need to show compelling interest to restrict the free exercise of religion provided it doesn't aim the law at particular religions, then I admit I don't understand their logic. Not only does it contradict precedent, but Scalia himself ruled that New Jersey couldn't restrict the Boy Scouts' constitutional rights even with a law that applied to everyone. Would you mind explaining it? -- Dan

I wasn't referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the compelling state interest test. Even before that, the U.S. Supreme Court had always rejected the use of illegal drugs for religious purposes, with the exception of the use of peyote by the Native American Church. Most countries with constitutional protection of freedom of religion prohibit use of illegal drugs even for religious purposes, and their courts don't consider that a violation of freedom of religion. Constitutional protections of freedom of religion are intended primarily to protect what are traditionally considered to be religious practices, and which can be carried out with little harm to others: e.g. prayer, meditation, singing, giving sermons, printing and distributing literature, etc. They are not intended to give religions a carte blanche exclusion from the law. Otherwise we'd have to allow the practice of such religious activities as human sacrifice.

I'm not saying I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court on this -- I don't support drug prohibition. But "(Despite rulings that the First Amendment protects religions even if they do not make sense, courts today tend to reject such defenses in "drug" cases.)" is biased, and ignores the Court's logic. -- SJK

Compared to other "hallucinogenic" substances, LSD is 100 times more potent than psilocybin and psilocin? and 4,000 times more potent than mescaline.

Using what quantitative test of potency?

I believe the usual test is to establish the minimum dosage required to have a noticable effect, as well as the dosage at which maximum effect is reached (whereby higher doses do not produce a perceivably stronger effect). Since the effects of these drugs are highly subjective, physical effects would also have to be observed (pupil dilation, etc), but for the most part the potency was established through experimentation. Since all three of these drugs have extremely rapid tolerance build up (and also cross-tolerance with each other), the same subject would have to wait about a week before testing a different dosage.

The effective dose range for an average person (ranging from a very mild, to a strong dose) of LSD is between 60-200 micrograms. (Which means that a 50ug dose on a blotter is pitifully weak, and 20ug blotter would mean that you would have to take at least three hits for a very mild effect). The effective dose range for psilocybin is between 2-20 milligrams, and the effective dose range of mescaline is between 100-700 milligrams. The low end numbers may be below the threshold for some people, and likewise the strong dose may need to be higher for some people (clinical studies of LSD sometimes used dosages between 500-1000ug). --Thoric 16:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps people familiar with writing about organic chemistry could answer my small point about language. As I understand the proper name for the substance is "d-lysergic acid ..." with a lowere case "d". Would it not be the case that this would even override the use of a capital "D" even at the beginning of a sentence. Eclecticology 02:46 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

To partly address this question, the use of d- and l- prescripts in natural products chemistry refer to the way solutions of the compound rotate plane polarized light. d, or dextrorotary compounds, rotate a plane of polarized light to the right, and l, or levulorotary compounds, rotate a plane of polarized light to the left. More exactly, if my recollection is correct, there are four stereoisomers of lysergic acid diethylamide of which only one is pharmacologically active. Dwmyers 19:28, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Portions of the manufacture section appear to be cribbed directly from the DEA website. Is that a copyright issue, is it public domain, and since the DEA is not a neutral party, is the info (particularly w/r/t synthesis from morning glory seeds) corroborated from other sources.

DEA's an American governmental organization, so their stuff should be in the public domain except in special cases. Bryan 03:07 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe the MK-ULTRA CIA experimentation story, but since it smacks of conspiracy theory, can someone mention the source of this info to try and keep a NPOV? "According to..." or "There are some who believe that...", etc. mjb 04:23 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

There's plenty of information out there about MK-ULTRA. MK-ULTRA is far from a controversial topic. However, it would be good to cite sources or point to external references (as it's good to do such things no matter what the topic is). --Jizzbug

The MKULTRA article goes into more detail on sources. In 1974, the New York Times published a story revealing that the CIA had conducted experiments on US citizens, and the Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission were formed to investigate. MKULTRA became public knowledge at Rockefeller Commission hearings during the next year. --kwertii

The MKULTRA information is all from declassified CIA documents released in the early 1990's. The experimentation at Edgewood US Army base and the public experiments in NYC are all backed up by this declassified documentation.

Still, the article could use some more citations, footnotes, or sources for people like mjb. --Viriditas 08:39, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'm no expert in this area, but ergotamine tartrate is almost certainly not the isolation product from ergot, ergotamine is. However, the free lysergic acid amides, such as ergotamine or LSD, are prone to decomposition when exposed to light, heat or air, and the tartrate salts are less prone to that decomposition. The 8th edition of the Merck Index doesn't speak of the isolation of ergotamine tartrate from ergot, rather, it gives a reference with ergotamine, that being Stoll, Helvetica Chemica Acta 28, 1283 (1945). The Wikipedia probably needs an article on ergotamine itself, it's given to mothers during delivery and otherwise has medicinal uses. My recollection is also that ergotamines can be isolated from Hawaiian woodrose seeds and morning glory seeds, though not in the quantity you can get from the ergot fungus.

Finally, comments to the effect that the synthesis of LSD is somehow difficult and extreme needs to be moderated by the observation that a student of chemistry who has completed a year of organic chemistry and lab at a US university is fully capable of this synthesis (if not experienced in it). All you're making is an acid amide, for cryin' out loud.Dwmyers 01:01, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The article quotes "LSD users do, however, exhibit tolerance; LSD's effects diminish with frequent, repeated use, especially over short periods of time."

However, personal experience corroborates this Britannica link that original sensitivity is regained if you abstain use for a few days (generally 5-7). If someone can post specific reputed information that supports the write-up or me, we can correct the article. Gyan

I don't think there's a contradiction here, just information missing from the article. I've had a swing at it. (As a wild guess, this sounds to me like the tolerance results from the depletion of some endogenous substance that is replenished fairly quickly, rather than the up- or down-regulation of receptors responsible for tolerance against most neuroactive substances.) Salsa Shark 10:03, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But the writeup gives the impression that if you took a hit every 6 weeks, you would still need to take more to get the same effects and that's not observed by me. The tolerance is transient. Gyan

The potency of the subjective effects of LSD are tied into the mindstate of the user. Someone who uses LSD on a regular basis becomes used to the effects, and possibly more confident which results in perceiving that the effect is not as strong as previous experiences. This too dissipates with time. I've edited the tolerance section to clarify things. --Thoric

This is incorrect. As I've stated elsewhere, I have used LSD in my earlier years, and this is not a matter of feeling that the effect is diminished after an initial experience. Like doses from like sources produced radically different effects ranging from amount of pupil dilation to physical "speedy" effects to visual distortion to mental clarity. In terms of all of those measures, the dose taken one day later had almost no discernable effect. LSD certainly has a strong impact on perception, but unlike alcohol, the ability to assess one's own state of intoxication is largely intact. 3-7 days later, the same dose once again has its full effect. I'm sorry I can't get you any physical evidence to support this, but I haven't taken LSD in years, and wouldn't even know where to get it, nor would I (for personal reasons, see above edits) be willing to use it again Harmil 21:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Under the headline Flashbacks, there are some common thories of causes of LSD flashbacks mentioned. However, the most common explanation I know is missing. I first heard it from Robert Anton Wilson and immediately felt it to be a very good and fitting explanation:

The mind is capable of many different "states". We have sober wakefulness, deep sleep, REM sleep, alertness, anger, etc. Some of theses possible states are harder to reach than other (for instance egoloss) but all are more or less reachable by conventional yogic practice (without drugs). Now, a flashback can best be considered as nothing but a change in mental state. A person with LSD experience have a much higher chance of reaching one of the more esoteric states since that person has already "been there". A spontaneous change to such a mental state might be very frightening to someone not very experienced with consciousness change/exploration.

Maybe I could get details of where (in what book/lecture) Wilson gives his analysis on the subject.

I've taken LSD myself, but I don't think that it enhances "thinking" or creativity. It creates certain visual patterns which are quite well depicted in psychedelic art. However the patterns are always the same and as such not very creative. It's main features are colorfullness, repetition and fractal geometry. That's it. And "thinking" is in no way enhanced under LSD, on the contrary, under acute influence of LSD your judgement and intelligence is severely RESTRAINED.

To the question of hallocinations: Yes, LSD only distorts external input. You'll see geometrical patterns on objects, imaginary movements of their shape and size, but the object itself is always real and never completly imaginary. The same for audio input, a person talking far away from you can appear as if he is close to you whispering into your ear, and the sound can be severely distorted - however the sentence you'll hear is always real and never imaginary and as such no real hallocination.

There are many who would disagree with you. Further, the experience one has with LSD has much to do with the user, the environment, and the dosage. I have had profound, mystical, illuminating experiences with LSD. Also, LSD experiences are like snowflakes - you'll never find two alike. Finally, the term "hallucinations" tends to infer than whatever the user is experiencing is not "real." At a fundamental level it's extremely hard to support that conclusion, IMO. --66.228.91.155 15:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd say LSD have few "built-in" properties like enhancing thinking or creativity, creating hallucinations or working as a self-analysing tool. It's impossible to characterize LSD by such simple properties since it all depends so much on set and setting as well as the trip guide (if present). It's just a tool that can be used to enhance creativity if that is what one wishes.

What about the method of action? Lacking the data to immediately contribute, the best I can do is download my recollection that LSD is a serotonin agonist. Other hallucinogens agonize other receptors - mescalline might be a noradrenaline agonist, but it certainly doesn't work like methamphetamine or cocaine.

Method of action is an important consideration with any drug, and lets us study drug policies in an informed context.

Bird 22:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re: Steve Wozniak being removed from "notables". Indeed, he claims on his site that he never used LSD. So a user removed him, citing this. OK. However, it's interesting to note that he told TIME Magazine (approx. 8-10 years ago) that the concept of the first Apple PC came to him during an LSD trip. Given Jobs' fairly extensive LSD use at the time, it's quite hard to believe that Wozniak just made that up. But I suppose we take him at his word? (His most recent word, that is.) Might it be appropriate to include a quote from the article? Or should we just leave him out? It certainly, in this writer's opinion, is an informative tidbit in re: the impact psychedelics had on the high-tech revolution.

--207.31.248.155 15:39, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Why "take him at his word"? It seems to me to be better to document facts. 10 years ago he said that. Now he says this.

I think the "notables" section is interesting (as opposed to for example the possibly endless list of cocaine notables), but isn't it growing rather large? Maybe it should be moved to a page of it's own?

hey, can someone provide a list of common/slang names for LSD? i think that would be really helpful. JoeSmack (talk) 18:41, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Not sure if it's any good for the article, but here's a list from the Erowid drug slang vault ([1]). It's probably not even close to being exhaustive, and many of the names are just names for specific blotter sheet art. Maybe some of the most commonly used could make it into the article.. if you think otherwise, just delete this.

A, acid

barrels, Bart Simpson (specific blotter), Battery acid, Beast, Beavis & Butthead (specific blotter), Bells, Big D, Bird head, Black acid (lsd or lsd/pcp combo), Black Star, Black Sunshine, Black tabs, Blackbird (specific blotter), Blaze, Blotter, Blotter acid, Blotter cube, Blue acid, Blue Barrels, Blue Chairs, Blue Cheers, Blue Fly (LSD from NYC), Blue Heaven(s), Blue Microdot, Blue Mist, Blue Moons, Blue Star (specific blotter), Blue Vials, Book (100 dosage units), Brown Bombers, Brown Dots

California Sunshine, Candy Flip (LSD + MDMA combo), Candy Flipping on a String (LSD, MDMA and Cocaine combi), Cap, Caps, Casper the ghost, Caviar, Cheap basing, Cheers, Chief, Chinese dragons, Chocolate chips, Church (specific blotter), Cid, Class, Coffee, Colors, Conductor, Contact Lens, Crackers, Crystal tea, Cube (sugarcube), Cupcakes, D, Deeda, Dental Floss, Diablo (specific blotter), Dinosaurs (specific blotter), Domes (a form of lsd (?)), Doses, Dots (microdots), Double Dome, Double Dreads (LSD + Amphetamine combo), Dragon (specific blotter)

El Cid, Electric Kool Aid, Ellis Day, Elvis, Felix the Cat, Fields, Flash, Flashers (LSD that is very hallucinogenic (?)), Flat Blues, Flats, Flying Triangle (specific blotter), Frisco Special/Frisco Speedball (Cocaine, Heroin and LSD combo), Frogs, Fry Gel caps (mistakenly used in place of "geltab"), Geltab (LSD form), Ghost, Golden dragon, Golf balls, Goofys, Grape parfait, Green Double domes, Green Single domes, Green Wedge, Grey Shields (specific blotter)

Hats, Hawaiian Sunshine, Hawk, Haze, Headlights, Heaven, Heavenly, Hits (dosage unit)

Illusions, Infinity (LSD that lasts for a long period of time), Instant Zen

Jesus Christ acid (potent)

Kaleidoscope (specific blotter)

L, LAD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide), Laogor, Lason daga, Lason sa daga, LBJ, Leary's, Lens, Lids, Lime acid, Live Spit and Die, Logor, Loony toons, LSD-25, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds

Mellow yellow, Microdot(s) (LSD form), Mighty Quinn, Mind Blow, Mind Detergent, Mist, Moons, Mother of God (blotter with naked woman on it)

Newspapers

One Way, Optical Illusions, Orange Barrels, Orange Cubes, Orange Haze, Orange Micro, Orange Sunshine, Orange Wedges, Outerlimits, Owsley, Owsley's Acid, Owsley's Blue Dot

Pane, Paper Acid, Peace, Peace Tablets, Peaks, Pellets, Phoenix, Pink Blotters (specific blotter), Pink Panther (specific blotter), Pink Robots (specific blotter), Pink Wedge (specific blotter), Pink Witches (specific blotter), Pizza, Potato, Pure Love, Purple Barrels, Purple Dome, Purple Dots, Purple Flats, Purple Haze, Purple Hearts, Purple Mikes, Purple Ozoline, Purple Wedge, Pyramids

Rainbow, Recycle, Red Lips, Royal Blues, Royal Temple Ball (hashish mixed with LSD then rolled into a ball), Russian sickles

Sacrament, Sandoz, Serenity, Sheet rocking, Shields, Sherman, Sketch, Smears, Smiley (specific blotter), Square Dancing Tickets, Squirrel, Stamp (paper blotter), Star, Strawberry, Strawberry Fields, Sugar, Sugar Cubes, Sugar Lumps, Sunshine, Superman

T (tabs), Tabs (blotter), Tail lights, Teddy bears, Ten Pack (1000 dosage units), Ticket, Trips, Twenty-five

Uncle Sid

Valley Dolls, Vodka acid, Volcano 5 (specific blotter)

Waffles (specific blotter), Wedding Bells, Wedges, White Dust, White Lightning, White Owsley's, Window Glass, Window Pane, Woodstock

Yellow(s), Yellow Dimples, Yellow Sunshine

Zen, Zig Zag man

25

Psychiatric use

The article claims that scientific study of LSD ceased in 1980. That is simply not true, and you can visit the current LSD research link that I added, as well as the searchable Bibliography. Additionally, the statement by the DEA in the same section is full of errors and misinformation. Firstly, scientific LSD research has not been extensive and widespread. Secondly, its use in psychotherapy has not been "largely debunked", but is in fact ongoing. The DEA then goes on to claim that LSD does not produce "aphrodisiac effects". What that has to do with the price of tea in China is confusing at best, although there is some evidence that in fact it does produce such effects. The DEA claims that LSD does not increase creativity; Perhaps the DEA meant "productivity", as creativity is a subjective term. The DEA claims that LSD "has no lasting positive effect in treating alcoholics or criminals" when studies clearly exist showing that it does, and when Leary did just that he was hauled off to jail as a warning to academia. And on it goes. The misinformation seems to have no end, but does a great job scaring people. This article needs a serious revision. --Viriditas 11:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The quote from the DEA was drawn directly from the DEA's webpage, to provide their point of view. Neutral point of view requires that we present ALL points of view, not just the ones that you personally happen to agree with. Kwertii 22:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am familiar with the concept of NPOV and my initial response to the placement of the DEA's biased, opinionated, and politically-motivated comment in the Psychiatric Use section illustrates my concern with NPOV. Firstly, the DEA is a law enforcement agency whose job is to explicitly suppress the sale of certain drugs by enforcing the Controlled Substances Act. They are not experts in the field of pharmacology or medicine, so the quote does not belong in the Psychiatic Use section. Secondly, there were no sources, references or studies cited for the claim, so the claim remains unverified; an unsubstantiated assertion at worst, and a biased opinion at best. Just because the DEA says it is so, does not a fact make. Thirdly, I have not mentioned that I personally agree or disagree with any POV. I have merely observed the lack of objectively true facts from the DEA, and a lack of adequate documentation on this subject. Help me understand why this propaganda is included in the Psychiatric use section when it should be under a government and/or law enforcement section. By including it in the Psychiatric Use section, you are inferring that the DEA are experts in pharmacology or medicine, and you are setting up an argument from authority. I have no problem with the quote from the DEA being included on the page somewhere, but the current location is misleading. Please provide a primary cite for the claim made by the DEA, and the principal investigators who drew the conclusions in question. Multiple points of view are important, but so is verifiability. Thanks in advance. --Viriditas 12:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have a copy of Dr. Stanislav Grof's LSD Psychotherapy, and can summarize his (extremely important) contributions to psychiatric use of LSD. Dr. Humphry Osmond of course did a good deal of successful work with LSD (highly successful treatment of alcoholism), and even Dr. Timothy Leary did some promising work in treating alcoholism and reforming criminals through LSD therapy.

I'll draw up a new section on psychiatric use tonight. --Thoric 14:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Intro: Hallucinations and dose

Kwertii: I think the term 'sensory hallucinations' is problemtaic when used to describe LSD effects. From hallucination: "The ability to discriminate between self-generated and external sources of information is considered to be an important metacognitive skill and one which may break down to cause hallucinatory experiences." During hallucinogenic experiences it is usually possible to clearly discriminate drug indiced "hallucinations" from reality and in cases where it is not I would attribute delusional effects to secondary states, e.g. panic. The reason might be that "hallucinations" caused by psychedelics are rather abstract, or, at higher dosages, resemble active daydreaming and fantasies. This is in contrast to the real hallucinations caused by anticholinergic hallucinogens. I would call psychedelic "hallucinations" illusions, even if they seem to appear without external stimuli.

25 µg is usually considered the threshold dose, i.e. a plus one on the shulgin rating scale: "The drug is quite certainly active. The chronology can be determined with some accuracy, but the nature of the drug's effects are not yet apparent."

What do you think about this description: "A typical dose of LSD is only 100 micrograms, a tiny amount of one-tenth the mass of a grain of sand." :-)

Cacycle 20:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of note, Shulgin puts the dose range from 60 to 200ug. (See TiHKAL LSD). Threshold dose is between 25 and 50ug, 25ug being the low end (i.e. the average person may feel nothing from 25ug). 100ug is on the high end of a mild dose, so I don't know if that qualifies as a "typical dose". Incidentally, Erowid has figures different from that if TiHKAL (Erowid LSD Dosages). Stating a threshold dose as low as 20ug, and a common dose from 50-150ug. I suspect that those getting a significant effect from a dosage under 75ug were mixing it with other drugs such as cannabis or MDMA, had no idea what their dosage really was, or were experiencing a placibo effect. In any case, I agree with your modifications ;) It clarifies things quite a bit, and maybe the different levels/plateaus should be documented here. I started a psychedelic experience page, but didn't do much with it so far. I pasted in the various levels from the Psychedelic Experience FAQ, but it needs a lot of work. --Thoric 23:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of bob dylan ever commenting on his LSD experiences. and I've heard a lot of stuff that he's said. SECProto 01:42, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Document about Federico Fellini interviewed Fellini himself and several other famous actors, one of them mentioning that Fellini had tried lsd and reported that it had been like "going through doors". I wonder if Fellini should be added to the list? He is certainly notable. --Huopa 2004-12-07 13:05

Misinformation

I reverted Bletch's "NPOV" edit playing down the spread of misinformation that lead to the criminalization of LSD (i.e. chromosome damage, etc). While that paragraph could possible be worded a little better, Bletch's edits too drastically changed the meaning of the paragraph, and there is a huge pile of evidence to prove that purposeful misinformation was at play here. --Thoric 00:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thoric, I agree with you that there was (and still is!) deliberate misinformation about LSD, just as there was when Harry Anslinger told white people that marijuana would make their daughters sleep with black men and get syphilis. However, in order for Wikipedia to present a charge like that, it needs to be substantiated with references -- as the Anslinger quote is in that article. If you have specific references this article should cite on the subject, please add them. This will avoid the NPOV charge which otherwise is quite believable. --FOo 04:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect link?

I'm not sure D-lysergic acid should redirect to the LSD page, as they're chemically two different substances (the latter being the diethylamide of the former.)

-Murphyr

I have redirected it to Lysergic acid. Cacycle 12:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

psychosis

all he books i read say the same, that lsd and cannabis can cuase a psychosis. persons, who become psychotic, have had a latent psychosis, but expert do not know exatly, but most of them think so.

Please provide citations. --Viriditas | Talk 08:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

people jumed from roofs?

i have dozens of SERIOUS sources/links in german, i read a lot of GOOD books about drugs, all say the same, that people died after they had these hallucinations that they can fly.

Yes, this is not an uncommon phenomenon. However, it is often difficult to disambiguate hallucination-induced acts from attempted (or successful) suicide, where LSD or other mind-altering drugs are involved.

From a strictly anecdotal standpoint, I attended a college with a very low suicide rate, and I do not recall any such deaths, however, I would hear about at least one such suicide every summer from MIT (which has the highest suicide rate among US colleges). It is difficult to imagine that these two facts exist in a vacuum, and if anyone has hard, related data it might be interesting to include it in the entry. Harmil 21:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i dont know, is someone here, who can speak and read in german? i can post many serious, german articles.

i think, one reason to use lsd is, to change your brain chemistry to have hallucinations, to see things, t hey are not there. so what???

LSD rarely makes one "see things that are not there". The effects are usually limited to:

Disorientation (what users refer to as a "trippy" feeling)
False movement (patterns seem to undulate in proportion to their uniformity and complexity)
A sense of profoundity to otherwise mundane thougths and events
Kinesthesia (experiencing one sense as if it were another: e.g. tasting colors)
Long, wandering trains of thought

Of course, combined these factors can lead to several hallucinatory effects, but you are unlikely to see a large pink elephant standing in front of you (which, for example, you might if you took a deleriant such as DMT or Salvia Divinorum) or other such overt hallucinations. Psychotic episodes associated with a "bad trip" are another matter, and seem to be triggered by LSD use (often in association with other drugs), but are not typical LSD effects per se.

it seems to me, that many people think, when someone says something against drugs which souns like the antipropaganda form the past, that this are all lies.

i'm sorry, i lost 2 friends, who are now psychotic. so idont need books, which say me what lsd can do to people, but read many of them.

A side note: I understand. A very good friend ended up checking himself into an institution (thankfully) for pretty much exactly the same reason. Psychotic episodes (especially in association with mixing other drugs with LSD) are not terribly uncommon. In my earlier years, I experimented with such chemicals, and I came close to such an episode once myself. Fortunately, I was able to detach myself from the experience and actually enjoy it, but yes, these are not safe chemicals by any stretch of the imagination. Harmil 21:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i think its important, to figure out the truth, this is an enyclopedia.

i hope, my text is ok without to many mistakes, i'm from germany, so english is a foreingn language to me.

greets Linum 15:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scientific studies and especially meta-studies on hundreds of cases count more than a book that perpetuates old myths or the biased personal views of alleged experts. Please refrain from screwing up this page until you have to contribute better sources or harder facts. Cacycle 01:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is highly frowned upon if you remove critical statements from Talk pages. I have added back my comment above and I am still waiting for your serious sources. Cacycle 11:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i screw up the article? please try to face the truth - studies of the 50's are irrelevant, alcoholic anonymous was founded in the 30's, seventy years ago, so do you think, you can use 50 year old studies as an argument? sorry, please think about your sources. you redirect all my changes, but i can see no arguments. Linum

Your English is fine, but you need to post citations. --Viriditas | Talk 08:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where are your sources? Studies are ongoing and quite current. [2]--Viriditas | Talk 08:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A freshman at St John's College in Santa Fe, New Mexico jumped from his dorm roof on LSD during the 1998-99 or 1999-00 school year. I was there. It's not an urban legend. I don't know how to find documentation for that event, but I'm willing to look into it if it would help. Such things do happen, and the article might as well acknowledge that such events are very rare, although not unheard of. GTBacchus 18:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your schoolmate, but I find it difficult to believe that LSD "made" him jump from his dorm roof. Do you have evidence that toxicological tests returned positive results for LSD and LSD alone? Even if they did, it would be extremely difficult to link the LSD to his death. The urban legend of people jumping to their death from LSD started with the Frank Olson case, and pretty much ended there. --Viriditas | Talk 21:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, he didn't die; it was a low roof. Asked about it later, he said he thought he could fly because he was on LSD. That's enough to convince me, anyway.

I don't see what's wrong with a compromise sentence to the effect that, while it's not unheard of for people to believe and attempt really stupid things while on LSD, most people react to the drug in such a way that they'd rather avoid vigorous physical activity and places like the edges of roofs. GTBacchus 22:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of LSD myths intertwined with the facts. Everyone has an anecdotal story or FOAF story they can tell, but it's important to cite sources and stick to the facts. I mentioned the Frank Olson case above which never received much media attention, but I neglected to note that the death of Art Linkletter's daughter was primarily responsible for propagating the urban legend that people on LSD may jump to their death. The claim that, "there is a danger of foolish or incautious behavior, e.g, misjudging distances or thinking one can fly," can be found all over the net, in FAQ's and on pro-LSD websites, but seems to be unattributed. We should not include unattributed claims. There is an older paper by Vardy and Kay, Arch-Gen-Psych, 1983 40(8):877-83 that may or may not be relevant to this question. --Viriditas | Talk 01:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We now know for sure that there is a popular urban legend about "LSD and jumping from roofs". It is common to most urban legend that they are theoretically 'probable' — hard to believe or easily disprovable stories would not spread that fast. And as a matter of principle it is not possible to disprove every such story in general. Therefore we should have very rigorous criteria to include such statement here, e.g. LSD has been found in the blood of victims that were not suicidal and the story was published in a serious journal (BTW, I guess that most roof-top jump victims would underwent a close postmortem examination including drug tests and that LSD-cases would have been quickly published in a medical journal).

GTBacchus: It is definitely easier to tell that you were driven by LSD than to admit an attempted suicide(see link from above: [3]), especially when most people are aware of the urban legend. Therefore I would not consider this anectdotal report as a hard enough fact (sorry, I don't want to offend you or question your impression).

No offence taken, I realize that my anecdote isn't documentation. It never occurred to me that the kid was suicidal, mostly because he wasn't (I've been around suicides; this wasn't one), but whatever, it's all hearsay and FOAF at this point. I was just suggesting a compromise, but forget it. The current Physical Dangers section covers it pretty well, really.

"Driven" by LSD? What an interesting word choice. I would have said "tricked". Art Linkletter might have said "driven". As far as LSD being in the blood, I believe it's not detectable in the blood after a trip, being ingested in such trace amounts, and processed so quickly. So, LSD in a suicide's system would not show up in a post-mortem. I may be wrong about that. GTBacchus 01:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible to detect d-lysergic acid diethylamide tartrate itself in human blood serum after a trip. LSD is metabolized so quickly that after only a couple hours there is no LSD, only the neurochemical results of LSD. If anything, they detected metabolites. On another note: LSD does not make people psychotic. LSD (and cannabis, and many drugs) may precipitate undiagnosed, latent mental disorders, but that does not mean that LSD inherently triggers insanity in normal users. Certain people with genetic or psychological predisposition to insanity should not use drugs in the first place! It was their decision that they made. LSD doesn't cause people to go insane. It is true that people with mental disorders often go insane, depending on the nature of the disorder, after a traumatic experience---whether it is brought about by LSD, the death of a family member, or whatever, something eventually triggers it. Just because LSD can be one of those triggers in predisposed individuals doesn't mean that it will turn normal people into psychotics. I would speculate (with confidence) that people have done far riskier things while drunk than while on LSD. So what if he jumped off a roof? He deluded himself. It's sad, yes, but it's not the fault of LSD. It's too easy to blame a chemical in order to dodge responsibility. People try this all the time. Everything points to a suicide attempt, but I'm no Sherlock Holmes. What it comes down to, either way, is that he made the decision to do it. LSD didn't. --Muugokszhiion 05:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IN THEORY, yes, lsd can be psychologically addictive. but for all practical purposes, i'll have to see it before i believe it. if you know anyone right now itching for their next tab of lsd, then we can talk.... but until then, i simply do not believe it to be addictive.... but it is very, very bad for your mental health.

Notable people who have commented on their LSD experiences

I just removed John Coltrane from this list. According to Lewis Porter's book, John Coltrane: His Life and Music, Coltrane doesn't appear to have commented on his LSD experiences, but if someone can find a source for his comments, please add it back in. --Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well its widely believed that he did [4][5]. That's not proof though. --Benna 05:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply. Unfortunately, the person who wrote that article seems to be stretching the truth. The author of that site wrote: Upon returning from an inner voyage on LSD in 1965, the master of the tenor saxophone and spiritual truthseeker reported that "I perceived the inter-relationship of all life forms." this quote and others about Trane's LSD use (it was actually still legal at the time) are attributed to un-named quartet members and friends in more than one Coltrane biography, including...John Coltrane: His Life and Music... Well, I have the book open in front of me, and that quote does not appear to be attributed to LSD in the book. I could be wrong though, so I'll keep looking. There is no doubt that Coltrane took LSD, but I'm unable to find any comments by him about his LSD experience. --Viriditas | Talk 06:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I found some more information. The quote in question, "I perceived the inter-relationship of all life forms" is attributed to a 1975 book by J. C. Thomas, entitled, Chasin' the Trane: The music and mystique of John Coltrane, ISBN 0306800438. Lewis Porter (Rutgers), one of the most rigorous and respected Coltrane archivists, doubts some of Thomas' research, and questions his judgement throughout John Coltrane: His Life and Music. But, it must be said, Porter does not seem to be attacking Thomas as much as he is skeptical of the claims and sources Thomas relies upon for his book. Here is the related passage in question from Thomas' book:

Like the Kabbala, Sufi is a form of mysticism, in this case inspired by Islam. It stresses knowledge and Enlightenment, requesting its adherents to secure for themselves Oneness of Being and thus experience Absolute Reality. As the Treatise on Oneness says, "When the secret of an atom of the atoms is clear, the secret of all created things both external and internal is clear, and you do not see in this world or the next anything besides God." As the eighth-century Sufi Hasan Al-Barri said, "He that knows God loves Him, and he that knows the world abstains from it." Or as Garrett said to Coltrane, "You've got to go to the source to learn anything, and Sufi is one of the best sources there is. Garrett and the saxophonist had once gone directly to another source while working in Seattle, during the fall of 1965. There, they had taken LSD before recording an album. Contrary to current opinion, this occurred after, not before, Ascension was recorded. Of that record, many had thought, and some, such as Grace Slick of the Jefferson Airplane, had said that Ascension was "Coltrane's acid trip." However, the pervasive influence of ingesting acid may have produced the eerie, mystical vibrations that emanated from their recording of Om, which included, in addition to some of the freest and strangest music Coltrane ever recorded, the chanting of selected verses from the Bhagavad-Gita. And when Trane returned from his LSD trip, he said, as if quoting a Sufi sage, "I perceived the interrelationship of all life forms."

I guess it's a judgement call, as to whether or not this should be included as evidence of "notable people who have commented on their LSD experiences". At face value, it clearly meets that criteria, however music scholar Lewis Porter has pointed out problems with the verifiability of some aspects of Thomas' work. I suppose adding "alleged" to the entry on the page would be sufficient. I'll add it back in unless anyone disagrees. --Viriditas | Talk 09:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, although I have a bit of concern with the word "alledged," since it has a somewhat negative conotation. Though its a bit less succinct, I think "according to some sources," or something along those lines, may be a better way of putting it. --Benna 23:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alleged merely means, "declared but not proved". The reason I used it was because Lewis Porter has pointed out flaws in some of the claims made by Thomas. We don't know who the actual source is for the quote, but I could keep looking. The quote is also found in Nisenson's 1993 book, Ascension: John Coltrane and His Quest, but I don't know who he is quoting. The thing is, the majority of the people in this section have written or published direct, personal accounts about their LSD use. Coltrane hasn't, and this allegation is FOAF, which is tenuous at best. Now add the fact that Thomas has had some of his claims debunked by reputable Coltrane scholars, and you see the need for the word, "allged". We could say, "according to Thomas", but he sounds like he's quoting someone else. What do you think about leaving it as alleged until we find out his sources? --Viriditas | Talk 01:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think we do need something like alleged in there. And yes, I know that is the denotation of alleged. The connotation, however, is that what is being alleged is a negative thing. I don't think the article should be judging whether it would be a good or bad thing if he used LSD. I know I am nitpicking to an extent, but I do think there is a slight issue here. Perhaps the word asserted could be used instead? --Benna 02:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear. Do you think that alleged means something other than the definition I presented? It doesn't have any negative connotation in regards to LSD use. What the word does is point out that that it was declared that Coltrane commented on his LSD use, but it has not been proven. I don't see the value judgement you describe. Again, this section is for notable people who have commented on their LSD experiences. Sadly, there are only allegations that Coltrane has commented about LSD, as there doesn't appear to be any evidence, like notes, diaries, articles, etc...and Coltrane did in fact, write and comment about a great many things in interviews. Like I explained, some of Thomas' work is suspect by Coltrane scholars, which is another reason why the word alleged is used. All we have to do is find out who Thomas and Nisenson are quoting (it appears that Nisenson was quoting Thomas) and then we can attribute the quote without having to use the word "alleged". If you think Thomas should be believed without question, and we should trust his second or third-hand account of something Coltrane may have once said to a friend of a friend 10 years before he wrote his book, even after music scholar Lewis Porter has demonstrated flaws in Thomas' research, then by all means, remove the "alleged" tag, but I think this makes the article less than accurate. How did Thomas know that Coltrane said this? Who was he quoting? If I had to guess, it sounds like jazz bassist Donald Garrett. --Viriditas | Talk 02:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm really not questioning that there is some doubt. I completly believe you in that regaurd. I don't think we should just remove alleged. I think we should change it to a different word, with a similar meaning. When I say it has a negative conotation, I mean it has a negative conotation with regard to the thing that is "alleged" and not the statement that is alleging. People are alleged murders, rapists, whatever. You rarely if ever hear that someone allegedly did something positve. My point is that the article should not be judging whether using LSD is a positive or negative thing, and a negative judgement is implicit in the word "alleged." Therefore, I think we should find another word, with a similar meaning but without the negative conotation. My sugesting was asserted. Its not perfect but I can't really think of anything better. --Benna 03:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Attributed to" will work. Try that. --Viriditas | Talk 03:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok. --Benna 03:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand why it is meaningful or informative to include a list of people who have commented on their LSD experiences. What is the point? Most of the links do not include any information on when or where or under what circumstances they made the comments. What is the point?

One of the most important things about LSD is its impact on our society and culture. The list is a good representation of this. --Benna 21:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the IP user. The list just seems to keep on growing (and could possibly continue to do so). The list is already way too long to be of value to the article. Also for each person on the list there should be a reference to the place the person commented on his/her experience. Without knowing what each person said in his/her comment we have no idea from the list what impact the drug had. Currently the list only seems to say that many people have used LSD. Maybe a list of people for who LSD has had an impact on their lives would say more, but this may be too subjective. I suggest that the list should be moved to a separate page if people think it has any value. Aenar 21:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either way, but I'm willing to support any consensus. I would like to make one suggestion: if the list is split from the article, it would be helpful to list in the main article, let's say, the top ten, most notable people who have made important comments. --Viriditas | Talk 04:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

LSD testing

Just curious (really!), if LSD may be metabolized before the trip even wears off, is it possible to detect use of it afterwards? (clem 19:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I beleive so, because they can find some of the things it breaks down into; for years this had to be done through a spinal tap, so it never happened, but now i beleive they can test your hair . . . of course, this all may be hearsay, strychnine giving you back problems forever type rumors. Interestingly enough, i always thought that LSD was actually metabolized BEFORE it even kicks in . . . that within 20 minutes or so, there isn't any lsd left in your brain. i'll try to find this reference; if true, its very very interesting . . . --Heah 19:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

drug test doesn't even mention LSD the way I see it? (clem 20:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC))

It can be detected for 24-72 hours in a urine test, but its not in the standard NIDA 5 [6]. --Benna 03:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flashback material

Why was my flashback changes reverted? The cited study is clearly flawed. Have you actually read it? It's main point is that because only 23% of people taking LSD experiences flashbacks post-LSD, it means that 77% does not experience it (wow what a deep insight), and thus LSD doesn't cause flashbacks?! Sounds like good reasoning to you? No, but this is what is says! Go read it if you don't believe me. It's explanations for the 23% are even more dubious. Also note that this isn't a study worthy of an encyclopedia. It doesn't even seem it has been published in any journal (if it has, please let me know so I can write them and discredit the study), it's nothing more than a master of arts thesis and no-one is vouching for its accuracy. And it's flaws are very obvious. There is very clear evidence that LSD causes flashbacks - several studies have confirmed it in normal populations, and the prevalence is about 15-30%. Psychiatrists around the world are treating people with LSD-induced HPPD. All this evidence can not be dismissed by one seriously flawed meta-study that hasn't been published! Perhaps your ignorance of the other studies are due to wishful thinking?
(Added by 195.249.187.204 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 15 May 2005.)

In Hallucinogens, Nichols DE, Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2004 131-181, the quote is

Recently, Halpern and Pope (2003) have reviewed the evidence on hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD), the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition category for flashbacks. First, they note that the term flashback itself has been defined in so many different ways that they believe it is now virtually useless. Second, they point out that when LSD was used in a therapeutic or research setting, HPPD appeared less frequently than when it was used recreationally. Finally, because of the different ways that flashbacks were defined, it is impossible to discern the true incidence of the disorder. They do conclude that at least for some individuals, particularly users of LSD, a long-lasting HPPD syndrome can occur with symptoms of ‘‘persistent perceptual abnormalities reminiscent of acute intoxication.’’ Based on the millions of people who have taken hallucinogens, the incidence of HPPD appears to be very small, and there is presently no effective treatment.

In a newer paper, Hallucinogens: An Update, Halpern writes, "Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (“flashbacks”) are mentioned because this illness is often presented as a common adverse consequence of hallucinogen abuse. A recent careful review of the literature on HPPD reports that it is a rare disorder that develops in a distinctly vulnerable subpopulation of users who also were primarily exposed to LSD, in particular".

It would seem that 15-30% can't be characterized as a "rare" disorder. So, either Halpern is wrong, or that 15% figure is. A 15% incidence would imply 3.75 million people afflicted, in the US alone! If you refine the scope to heavy users (>50 times), that still works out to more than 600,000 people. Suffice to say, psychiatrists haven't been inundated by anywhere near that order of magnitude, let alone that number. My numbers are derived from the latest SAMHSA dataset I have come across. So, flashbacks are real but rare, and you have to be predisposed somehow to get them. If you have academic or 'peer-reviewed' data to the contrary, I'm all ears. Gyan 22:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"Flashbacks" are exceedingly rare, and the higher figures likely come more from bandwagon fallacy than anything else... for example: "yeah... I tried acid, it was pretty scary... I saw God... only tried it once, and still get flashbacks... I won't go near the stuff..." Historic studies show that incidences of reported ill effects (such as so calledflashbacks) go up drastically after media reports describing such conditions. --Thoric 18:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please place new comments at the bottom of the Talk page; when I checked for any discussion of your text, I didn't find any, and it was only checking the page history that I tracked it down.
Please 'sign' your comments using four tildes (~~~~; this makes it possible to follow a discussion through time, and to contact the participants.
Please read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite your sources.
If you plan to edit Wikipedia much, why not create an account? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey there, if you actually read the "No original research"-text it says that sources for Wikipedia-articles should be articles from reputable journals. The meta-study that is currently quoted is not published anywhere. It is just a master thesis and no-one is vouching for its soundness. Additionally, there are serious problems with the logic used by the article. So in my opinion, the contents of this article should - per the guidelines of Wikipedia - not affect the contents of this Wikipedia articles. Instead, the many other studies who found flashback effects (which, ironically, are used by the meta-article to argue that there is no flashback effects!) should be used, and they show that some porition of users experience flashback effects. I think it is your turn to justify the mention of the article because I have posted numerous reasons why it shouldn't be mentioned.
(added by 195.249.187.204 (talk · contribs) 17:01, 15 May 2005)

Given that you've ignored the straightforward request to sign your comment, I'm not sure what good this will do, but: I'm not responsible for the current content, and don't have to justify anything. I saw that you had added a long passage which involved a set of claims for which you gave no citations. It's not a question of whether you're right or wrong (I personally am extremely dubious about the value and validity of so-called meta-studies), but whether what you did conforms to Wikipedia policy. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you can revert anything the anon writes that you don't like. It appears you didn't even read the second version of what was put in. It was more factually stated. Now, to the anon, I've put the text back in, but you need to cite some evidence for the study being disputed. Wikipedia is not for original research so you disputing it does not matter. Find some published studies that do or some published studies that discuss the flashbacks and write factually about those. As a tip, what you wrote the first time fell far from NPOV, and was full of opinion. Cite valid sources and all will be good. - Taxman 18:44, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I most certainly did read it — it was in many ways even worse, including a direct appeal to the reader which goes against Wikipedia (or any encyclopædia's) style, and at least one bad typo. Merely reinserting it without noticing (or caring about?) those problems isn't acceptable. Also, your edit summary that the new material is no worse than anything else here isn't justification for letting it in; it's grounds for improving what's already here. Let's go for consistency by raising the quality, not by dragging it all down to the lowest common denomoninator. Given that this apparently a featured article, we should be particularly careful about what's added. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the meta-study, and the comments that follow it, should be removed from the article. I think its possible that claims about flashbacks might be overblown, but this perticular meta-study is not peer-reviewed, and its logic is questionable. An encyclopedia should not be citing such material. --Benna 18:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I really hope I didn't give the impression I was just trying to wreck havoc or something. The reasons for my changes were a genuine concern about the accuracy of the article. I do realize now that not all I wrote in the article was proper for an encyclopedia, but on the other hand, I was outraged to see such a study referenced. Sorry about that. I was unable to find published articles critizing it (where should you look for such a thing when the study isn't published in a journal and with about 10 links on Google?) and in order to comply with NPOV I decided to leave the link to the study and instead give reasons why the study was flawed. Now I realize that that the proper thing to do would be to simply remove the link and all mention of the study, because I doubt this study would fall under Wikipedia's guidelines as it hasn't been published and it certainly can't subsume published studies. I'm happy to see that other people agree that the study is flawed. I think most people would come to this conclusion if they read the article objectively. As the current dispute appears to be about the way I edited the article rather than the actual content, I will now remove the reference and replace it with references discussing the flashback effects. And to Mel Etitis: Thanks for your advice about how to submit articles to Wikipedia. However, I don't understand why you reverted the 2nd submission if your only concern was the style and a (bad) typo, you could at least have asked me to correct it (or have corrected it yourself) rather than reverting the article. But I think that the changes I'm now going to carry out will give a version we can all agree is consistent with the Wikipedia-guidelines. Benna: I too think the claims about flashbacks may be somewhat overblown but I think there can be little doubt that it does occur and is causally related to use of LSD. 195.249.187.204 19:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll have no problems with the reference to the study being removed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for Citations - "Curing" Alcoholism

The statistic that indicates that "studies in the 1950s" had a 50% rate of "curing" alcoholism needs citations for support--if it's to remain in this article--for several reasons: 1) Any time a claim is made regarding the statistical outcome of a scientific venture, the publication on which this claim is based must be referenced in order allow for others to interpret, judge and choose whether to accept or dispute the claim. And 2) Pertinent alcohol-related literature suggests that alcoholism is an "incurable" disorder. Rather, alcoholics who abstain for any length of time (including from the initiation of abstemious behavior to death) are said to be continually "in recovery." This statement is made generally because the psychological and interpersonal repercussions attributable to alcohol use/abuse with which the alcoholic must cope and endure persist throughout the lifespan--i.e., alcohol-related onset of depression, anxiety, fear of intimacy peri-recovery, etc.

Reference:

Kadden, et. al (1995). Preface. In M. E. Mattison (Ed.) National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism project MATCH monograph series: A clinical research guide for therapists treating individuals with alcohol abuse and dependence (pp. vii-xi). Rockville: National Institutes of Health

There were a number of sets of studies. Such as the well documented ones done by Humphry Osmond's team in Saskatchewan, Canada, and another by Timothy Leary's team at Harvard. --Thoric 19:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ive heard that the founder of alcoholics anonymous had a break with his sobriety by trying lsd because it was believed to cure alcoholism... is this accurate?

Bill Gates and LSD???

The articles cites a link to an interview by Bill Gates supposedly containing a ref to his LSD use, but there is no such mention in the interview. Is this claim factual? — 67.127.220.113

You must not have looked very far into the interview… — mjb 10:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PLAYBOY: Ever take LSD?

GATES: My errant youth ended a long time ago.

PLAYBOY: What does that mean?

GATES: That means there were things I did under the age of 25 that I ended up not doing subsequently.

PLAYBOY: One LSD story involved you staring at a table and thinking the corner was going to plunge into your eye.

GATES: [Smiles]

PLAYBOY: Ah, a glimmer of recognition.

GATES: That was on the other side of that boundary. The young mind can deal with certain kinds of gooping around that I don't think at this age I could. I don't think you're as capable of handling lack of sleep or whatever challenges you throw at your body as you get older. However, I never missed a day of work.

OK, thanks. Pilot error on search function. [7]

Quotes

What about moving the quote section to wikiquote and add a link to that? -- Pål Drange

The quote by 'SUBTREX' looks like a vandal's handiwork.

The quote by SUBTREX and the quote "One world before, many worlds after" are both gone now (the latter having been deleted before) because they aren't notable or famous quotations, they're just something someone said. GTBacchus 05:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Flashback edit

Before creating an account, I did a minuscule edit. Come on - we all know flashbacks can occur for years, and in the article it only said "days or months". — Twisturbed Tachyon 02:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"We all know" this? — mjb 11:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I assume the people who's interested enough in the subject to scrutinize this discussion page are aware of the duration of after-effects. You, for one, certainly knew it - yeah? Kind regards, (Twisturbed Tachyon 14:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC))

It was a rhetorical question. I was pointing out that your statement that "we all know" that some possibly contentious assertion (in this case, regarding the experience of flashbacks and how long after-the-fact they occur) indicates that you are making assumptions about the use of LSD by contributors to the discussion, and perhaps also about their personal experiences with flashbacks. (I didn't think it was necessary to explain my comment, but you requested a response on my Talk page) — mjb 22:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Because I assume that the people participating in this discussion are aware of the duration of long term effects, it doesen't automatically mean I assume they've had personal experience with the substance (though they might very well have so). I simply consider it to be common knowledge within this field that flashbacks can occur for years, regardless of whether the people who participate in the discussion has tripped on acid themselves or not, you dig? Kind regards, --Twisturbed Tachyon 03:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Flashbacks can occur for years, as they are essentially a form of PTSD. It should be emphasized that flashbacks are exceedingly rare, and there is no real evidence as of yet that LSD "flashbacks" are different from memory flashbacks caused by any other traumatic event. --Thoric 16:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Dose, duration, and intensity

The following sentence:

One characteristic feature of LSD is that with higher doses, the duration of the experience increases, but not the intensity.

has been repeatedly changed into to opposite:

One characteristic feature of LSD is that with higher doses, the nature of the experience changes, with only a moderate effect on the duration.

From what I remember there is some "non-linearity" or "saturation" of the dose-response curve so that taking increasing doses does not result in a real further intensification from a certain point on. However, a quick internet-search did not provide a source for that. Until somebody can find a reference to clear this up I will take that sentence out of the article. Cacycle 21:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

First, it hasn't been "repeatedly" changed into that sentence. Check the History, I only made *1* edit to 'Acute Duration'.

Coming to the point about duration and intensity, it works like this: The 'trip' can be subdivided into the primary trip and the subsequent secondary one. The primary or proper trip is characterized by significant truncation of short-term memory, resulting in time and space distortion. Depending on dose, this doesn't last beyond 7-8 hours. After this phase, the secondary phase is characterized by some visuals, and moderate cognitive effects. When a duration of 12-14 hours is cited, it normally refers to the sum of both primary and secondary phases. The secondary phase segues into the comedown but is distinct from it. Now, 25-50 mcg is a typical threshold dose, resulting in a moderate first phase of 4 hours. As you take higher doses, say 150 mcg, this first phase increases to 5-6 hours but the chief difference is the intensity. As you jump to 400 mcg, again similar change. The intensification plateaus after 500-600 mcg, but the duration platueas earlier. The only way to support the earlier version is if you are only characterizing changes relative to 400 mcg. Now, according to the DEA, average hit is between 20-80 mcg, and I haven't seen many people take more than 3-4 hits, so within *normal* usage, higher dose results in more intense experience with only moderate effect on duration. - Gyan 18:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Films?

Hi,

i have no clue about wikipedia really so i'd rather not change anything in the article but as i was researching for a film related paper, i was wondering why there are no relations of the wikipedia article on LSD to films, to name the ones that come to my mind immediately:

- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (USA, 1998) D: Terry Gilliam - Das Netz (Germany, 2004) D: Lutz Dammbeck - Altered States (USA, 1980) D: Ken Russell

http://researchpubs.com/books/isfexc2.shtml

bye

This page is wack.

Seriosly, is anyone even experienced? Reads like a teenager with aspirations of becoming a psychiatrist wrote this whilst on bible camp, in crayon, then dictated it to their besty who punched it in with their thumbs through autocorrect. No wonder research is fifty years behind where it could be. Benjaminzedrine (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Tolerance

From history: Cobberlicious talk contribs‎ 174,020 bytes −95‎ Removed a nonsensical, unreferenced statement: "Frequent use rapidly builds tolerance, requiring exponentially larger doses to feel an effect." -- rapid LSD tolerance is hardly "nonsensical", perhaps this needs to have a reference here, or be reworded, but shouldn't be removed. This is a distinct characteristic of LSD and similar psychedelics. Taking the exact same dose the very next day will only produce half the effect, and the dose basically needs to be doubled. On the third day it would need to be doubled again, and by the fourth day, often doubling the dose once again doesn't produce the same effects, and people become uneasy taking very high doses.

https://mind-foundation.org/tolerance-to-lsd/ Thoric (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)