Talk:LSD

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 s/ 8

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Requested move 3 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Lysergic acid diethylamide → LSD – Per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:ACROTITLE: this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the abbreviation and LSD is the common name for the topic. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support COMMONNAME and ACROTITLE seem to cover it. It's already not a disambig page. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support: "LSD" is much more used. BhamBoi (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• 'Oppose: "Bike" is also more used than "Bicycle". This is not really a slang dictionary. The full name is quite recognizable. And I disagree it is primary topic (not in my world anyway - LSD means pounds-shilling-pence). Walrasiad (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just my two cents, but I would have no idea that this was the full name for the common name of the drug. Everyone knows bike is short for bicycle, but not everyone knows LSD is short for this. Also, see COMMONNAME. BhamBoi (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Really? I've known it since I was in middle school. In central Africa, of all places, where the drug is practically non-existent. But well-meaning Western aid workers pushed these "don't do drugs" pamphlets on us, and there was this funky name that was very memorable. Walrasiad (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Biggest problem is that LSD is not an acronym of lysergic acid diethylamide, which would be LAD. Instead of "acid" the common term for the substance is based on the German word. This is confusing. I also find it hard to believe you think more people recognize than "LSD". —DIYeditor (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say it was more recognizable. I said it was sufficiently recognizable. I don't see a reason to resort to acronyms or slang pointlessly. Walrasiad (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME, which includes a similar example in aspirin. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - whilst "LSD" redirects to this article, there is nothing wrong with redirects. Besides, in the UK, LSD usually refers to the predecimal currency. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  £sd seems to be written in lowercase as "Lsd". There is nothing wrong with redirects but that sometimes causes problems with recognizability of the subject -- "LSD" is more recognizable than what appears to be "LAD" at first glance. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: Previous move-requests for this same proposal:
  • June 2014 (no consensus)
  • August 2017 (consensus to remain at the full name)

DMacks (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support If we choose to keep this article at its longform name, we might as well move "MDMA" to "3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine", but that's obviously just as ridiculous. Googol30 (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. (Disclaimer: I was the one who probably sparked this RM by mentioning it at the Talk:Liquid-crystal display RM). But unlike "Liquid-crystal display", lysergic acid diethylamide is not a household name and fails WP:RECOGNIZABLE quite badly. Apart from above-mentioned MDMA, this is more comparable to DNA, which is not at "Deoxyribonucleic acid". No such user (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support - I almost felt comfortable closing this, but wanted to add instead that £sd is denoted with the symbol £ and not an L, so a hatnote to £sd should suffice for that (case notwithstanding). As well as that, a search of the article reveals the moniker "LSD" being used over 400 times, and the full name being used around 30. I know that's largely in the sake of brevity, but it could be argued that brevity is what likely leads to "LSD" being the common name. I don't necessarily oppose the actual title being the long name of the drug, it fits my preferences more closely, but the examples for MDMA and DNA seem to indicate a preference for accepting the most common name, so we may as well be consistent. (Interesting, though, how the community sentiment has changed since 2017, at least) ASUKITE 04:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - To be brief, the anacronym is unencyclopedic. Redirect LSD. If it ain't broke, dont try to fix it. Jusdafax (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  How is it an unencyclopedic acronym? I get that the slang "acid" is unencyclopedic, but a lot of academic journals and books use LSD exclusively after the first instance -- some mention its full name once and never again.

  WP:AT's WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY are the policies here. The full name is only mentioned 16 times in the titles of the 249 currently listed sources -- that's ~6%, so it's clear that LSD is more recognizable and commonly used. I have yet to understand the difference between LSD and DNA or Aspirin. In fact, LSD is a German abbreviation that has become such integrated into English that it's confusing to see a title that appears to be "LAD" at first glance. Therefore I think the current title is broke and needs fixing. Besides, LSD art has existed for years and no concerns have been raised there. Best regards, ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 09:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The two previous move-requests, noted above, came to different conclusions, with the last being in 2017. I read both 2014 and 2017 requests carefully, and found a lot of good arguments made there, especially about the LSD redirect. So, the only difference is going to be LSD at the top of the article, instead of the proper chemical name lysergic acid diethylamide. And that's how I concluded the current name not only ain't broke, but that changing it is, in my view, unencyclopedic, despite the policies you cite. Perhaps all the previous participants should be pinged for their current views, so it isn't just a half dozen editors making this decision in, at this moment, a ten day time frame. Cheers. Jusdafax (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Word Choice Problems

As I began reading through the article, I noticed that some of the word choices are questionable. I feel words & phrases like "trip" and "cause mystical experiences" are unprofessional and therefore do not belong as per WP:TONE. As a very new editor, I would appreciate assistance in maintaining professional language throughout the article. --Destructaconn (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

As of the time signed at the end of this paragraph, I have replaced both above quoted examples of informal language, and replaced them with something more fitting. In addition, I have fixed an unrelated grammatical error. However, I am now noticing something else. Some choice words in the article appear somewhat positively biased towards LSD and its effects as a whole; while the phrase "In contrast to schizophrenia, LSD induces transcendental experiences with lasting psychological benefit." is accurate based on the sources it cites, it uses language that implies such experiences are always and can only be positive, which I feel is misleading and very possibly biased. Combing through the article and replacing phrases like these with more neutral language would help in bringing this article to a WP:NPOV. --Destructaconn (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Destructaconn: Psychedelic experience#Mystical experiences is not an "unprofessional" or "informal" term. If you read that article, the term was coined by a professional researcher, so I do not agree with you there. "Trip" is a colloquial term, but please keep in mind Wikipedia is aimed at the layperson, not a professional audience, it's a free encyclopedia, not a scientific journal.

it uses language that implies such experiences are always and can only be positive, which I feel is misleading and very possibly biased That may just be your interpretation, since the lede notes that

Adverse psychological reactions are possible, such as anxiety, paranoia, and delusions.[7] LSD is active in small amounts relative to other psychoactive compounds with doses measured in micrograms.[20] It is possible for LSD to induce either intermittent or chronic visual hallucinations, in spite of no further use. Common effects include visual snow and palinopsia. In cases where this causes distress or impairment it is diagnosed as hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD)

That does not sound positive in my ears. Kleuske (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll concede the point on mystical experiences, I didn't notice the source used that language specifically. Regarding the positive word choice, I was not claiming that the article itself was positive or negative towards LSD, simply that a few words I found felt out of place in their tone/POV. The article as a whole is very neutral as it should be, touching on negatives and positives. I simply feel "transcendental experiences with lasting psychological benefit" could be worded better to keep a neutral tone. As for "trip" being a recognizable colloquialism, rewording it to "experience" as I did does not greatly diminish its understandability to an average viewer. They are both easily recognizable and understandable words capable of being used in this situation, and one of them is more formal. This seems like an obvious situation where such a colloquialism is unnecessary. Better yet, some of the syntax in that area could be reworked so that something such as "Psychedelic experiences (colloquially known as 'trips') with LSD on average last for 8-12 hours, sometimes up to 20 hours." would work. That would include both words, and set up use of the more formal word further on in the article. --Destructaconn (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources actually mention mystical experiences,

Mystical experiences were assessed 24 h after drug administration using the States of Consciousness Questionnaire [25, 26] that includes the 43-item Mystical Effects Questionnaire (MEQ43) [25], 30-item Mystical Effects Questionnaire (MEQ30)
[...]
Alterations of mind and mystical-type effects are shown in Figs. 2, S2, respectively.
— https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8027607/

Acute mystical-type experiences that are acutely induced by hallucinogens are thought to contribute to their potential therapeutic effects. However, no data have been reported on LSD-induced mystical experiences [...] On the MEQ, 200 μg LSD induced mystical experiences that were comparable to those in patients who underwent LSD-assisted psychotherapy [...]
— https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5420386/

"Mystical experience" is also used in scholarly contexts, see Scholarly_approaches_to_mysticism#Mystical_experience.

As for "trip", I think "experience" fits better than "trip" for WP:TONE. --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

some of the syntax in that area could be reworked so that something such as "Psychedelic experiences (colloquially known as 'trips') with LSD on average last for 8-12 hours, sometimes up to 20 hours." would work - agree. For instance, Mental disorders under LSD#Psychological_effects states, LSD may trigger panic attacks or feelings of extreme anxiety, known colloquially as a "bad trip". --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

For what its worth, I used similar wording for N,N-Dimethyltryptamine#Mental_disorders sometime ago, DMT may trigger adverse psychological reactions, known colloquially as a "bad trip", such as intense fear, paranoia, anxiety, panic attacks, and substance-induced psychosis, particularly in predisposed individuals --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as an old acid head who first took LSD (very pure Owsley White Lighning) when he was 15, I personally consider LSD a "transcendental" drug, but this is an encyclopedia article after all. I've edited the text to align with the cited sources, changing "LSD induces transcendental experiences" to "LSD can induce mental states that transcend the experience of everyday consciousness". As I wrote in my edit summary, Nichol's and Barker's paper refers to "transcendent", not "transcendental", a different concept altogether, which suggests Emersonian Transcendentalism, while only three of the four instances of "transcend" in Lee and Shlain's book "Acid Dreams" actually refer to the drug. Also, given that we shouldn't use technical jargon except where unavoidable, as in scientific articles, I don't believe we should write down to the reader, or dumb down an article's content to accommodate the uneducated reader who can't read beyond an eighth-grade level, either. We have Simple Wikipedia for that. Carlstak (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Carlstak: The previous wording was correct. "Transcendental experience" in this context does not refer to transcendentalism, it refers to its more fringe use in some forms of psychology, such as transpersonal psychology. Although I’m not certain, I believe R. D. Laing first popularized this idea in his 1964 lecture on the subject, which was published in 1965. These ideas were later embraced by Roland Griffiths and Bill Richards and are well supported in the therapeutic psychedelic literature, but probably nowhere else. Wikipedia doesn’t really have an article on the subject at the moment, and most discussion takes place in secondary articles. The article on psychedelic therapy should probably mention it, as it is a major topic of discussion in that context, but not unique to that topic. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I take your point. However, of the given sources, Nichol's and Barker's paper doesn't use the word "transcendental", while Martin A. Lee's and Bruce Shlain's book, Acid Dreams, does use the word "transcendental" fifteen times according to a Google search of the book text, but neither Lee nor Shlain have advanced degrees in fields germane to the study of LSD itself. Lee has only an undergraduate degree in philosophy, and Shlain is a professional writer whose other books include Baseball Inside Out: Winning the Games Within the Games and Oddballs: Baseball's Greatest Pranksters, Flakes, Hot Dogs, and Hotheads. Acid Dreams is not a top quality source, and we would need a better one. Carlstak (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Carlstak: Nichol's & Barker discuss the 5 Dimensions of Altered States of Consciousness (5D-ASC) scale, which like the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), specifically measures transcendental experiences. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I missed that. So the paper serves as a relevant reliable source, but I still think the previous wording (before I changed it) in our article, "transcendental experiences", is too vague The average reader isn't going to be aware of those nuances, nor will they bother to check the sources (according to WP's own data, as I understand it). Can you come up with an alternative phrasing that's more precise, yet still clear enough for that reader to grasp that it's not New Age bullshit? :-) I'm sure I could do it, but I had a particularly strenuous bike ride today, and I'm fading fast. By the way, you don't need to ping me; I'm following this page, and I'll check in tomorrow. Carlstak (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s an interesting question, and it’s something I’ve been thinking about. If you’ve read Pollan (2018), then you know he’s touched on the history of this idea so there’s a lot there. The description involves a qualitative assessment of a so-called mystical experience (or ASC). This includes the loss of the sense of time, the experience of amazement, the inability to explain in words, insightful knowledge experienced intuitively, the experience of eternity or infinity, the fusion of the personal self into a larger whole, an encounter with ultimate reality, the experience of the profound, sacred, and holy, and the experience of unity or wholeness. These examples are all from the sister test of the 5D-ASC, the MEQ. This is what is meant by the transcendental experience, or "things that lie beyond the practical experience of ordinary people, and cannot be discovered or understood by ordinary reasoning". It’s probably not an ideal description in a more modern, data driven world, as it touches upon what has been previously referred to as mysticism, spirituality, or religion. But as far as I know, it’s the only language available to describe it. It’s a bit of a conundrum. In Zen, they say you have to go where language can’t, and this seems to be the problem at hand. This also probably explains why art and imagery are able to describe and communicate the experience better than words. Which makes it even more difficult when we try and write about something that can’t be described or contained by language alone. Which is why as bad as it is, we are left with the term "transcendental experience", because it’s the best we can do. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It came to me in a flash, just like tripping on that good old Owsley acid (I'll never get to sleep). I've made what I hope is a Solomonic edit to the article, changing the text to "LSD can induce transcendental experiences, or mental states that transcend the experience of everyday consciousness, with lasting psychological benefit." I emailed Owsley before he got killed in that car crash to tell him how much I enjoyed his creations, and he actually responded with some positive vibes.;-) Carlstak (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like we do have an article on this type of transcendent experience. It’s found at transcendence (philosophy) and is attributed to Abraham Maslow. It apparently has some overlap with transcendence (religion). The topic was addressed by Maslow from 1968 to 1970 in print, with a larger collection of his work published after his death here. I think this is the body of work that later researchers are referring to in their usage of the term regarding psychedelics. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, enlightening. Thank you very much, I feel smarter already. This has been a stimulating discussion, and it seems to have inspired some extraordinarily vivid dreams last night with an unusual textural 3-D quality, laden with symbolic meaning I'm sure. I wish Owsley were still around to interpret them for me.;-) Carlstak (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Following this discussion, I've changed "transcendental" to "transcendent" in the article per cited Nichol and Barker paper: "...high doses have a greater propensity to transport the user to an alternate reality, where they lose contact with their everyday environment. These occasions are often described as "peak experiences", "transcendent", or "mystical" and are profoundly altered states of consciousness." Also linked the word "transcendent" to the Contemporary philosophy section of the "Transcendence (philosophy)" WP article. Carlstak (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Just as an aside concerning the term "transcendent", since we've been discussing it, Owsley was a genius who, besides making very pure LSD, designed the Grateful Dead's Wall of Sound system with the aim of amplifying the transcendent experience of tripping on acid. I heard it under those conditions, and he unquestionably succeeded. Carlstak (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Preference for old molecular structure and name

Hello,

I just wanted to voice my opinion on the new changes to the molecular structure orientation (previously it was "upright") and name (previous Lysergic acid diethylamide) in case other editors felt the same.

The prior molecular structure placed more emphasis on the recognizable tryptamine backbone present in LSD. The current structure obscures this by rotation and does not emphasis another motif in turn (like the phenylethylamine structure). I understand that it takes up less space in the article, but because it is part of a longer text space, this change barely influences formatting within the first 2 sections.

As for the name, this was probably done in accordance with a Wikipedia standard, so I imagine it is less prone to suggestion. However, plenty of compounds are titled by their non-abbreviated name to emphasize their broader classifications. For example, DMT (although the inclusion of N,N is a bit much). I believe that the full name suits the Wikipedia register better than an abbreviation, which could instead easily be a redirect to keep the article findable by users. Oro Temp (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

"The NIH states that LSD is addictive"

As far as I can tell, neither the live [1] or archived [2] page referenced actually says that LSD is addictive. What it says is this:

There are no FDA-approved medications to treat addiction to LSD or other hallucinogens. [...] More research is needed to find out if behavioral therapies can be used to treat addiction to hallucinogens.

This might sound as though it implies that LSD is addictive, but looking at the rest of the entries on the same page I'd suggest that it's just effectively placeholder text. (Besides, we can't cite an implication.) It certainly does not actually say that LSD is addictive. The introduction to the page says this:

Information on commonly used drugs with the potential for misuse or addiction can be found here.

LSD can certainly be misused, so its inclusion on the page does not constitute a statement that it is addictive. The NIH do in fact have a page [3] on which they address the question of whether psychs are addictive:

Limited research suggests that use of psychedelic drugs, such as psilocybin and LSD, does not typically lead to addiction. Researchers think that one reason may be because people commonly experience unpleasant side effects when taking these substances, including headaches and nausea, which reduces their desire to take them again.

It sounds like they're trying very hard to avoid saying that LSD is not addictive, but per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE "each statement in the article [should be] verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly" and the NIH do not appear to explicitly state that LSD is addictive.

I've added failed verification for now, but if nobody has any objections I will remove the claim because it seems to be untrue. I would just remove it straight away, but currently that section has a structure of "these people say it is addictive, but look at all these other people who say otherwise" and that would have to change (and I'm not doing that right now). Pink Bee (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No objections. The literature shows that psychedelics are in general, non-habit forming, and have been used for a century or more to treat addictions, albeit in less than scientific ways, and due to unknown mechanisms. This is how Alcoholics Anonymous started (Bill W. famously used LSD to get clean), and more recently, this is how psychedelics like Ibogaine have been used by opiate addicts to treat themselves. I also believe that psilocybin has been studied for its effects on nicotine addiction as well. Anecdotally, many people have quit tobacco smoking with the help of psychedelics. With all of that said, there is a psychological component of addiction in the psychonaut community, particularly of the kind found on social media, which seems to illustrate the "chasing the dragon" problem, where a very small number of people are "addicted" to taking psychedelics over and over again, often in non-constructive and less than therapeutic ways. This doesn’t mean or imply that psychedelics are addictive. Just because someone eats a dozen donuts a day doesn’t mean they are necessarily addictive either. Any substance is going to attract people who abuse it. Finally, the idea that psychedelics are inherently addictive is treated by the larger psychonaut community as absurd. This is because, microdoses aside, the average to above average dose (referred to as "heroic" in that subculture) tends to evoke a feeling of high strangeness and astonishment at best, and primal fear at worst (the cause of which is subject to great debate). Consequently, these unusual reactions lead to a high number of adventurers never trying it again. This is why the very idea of psychedelics being addictive is so wrong and misguided. Perhaps the best analogy here is the type of person who is attracted to roller coasters. Without looking too closely at the data, it appears that the enjoyment of such things is highly correlated with age. Younger people love roller coasters, a preference that quickly drops from 70% to 25% as one ages. Similarly, I would argue, that repeatedly taking psychedelics over and over again in a way that resembles addiction would follow the same pattern in terms of age. We don’t think roller coasters are addictive, but we do acknowledge that younger people enjoy them far more than older people. Lastly, there appears to be a genetic component associated with "thrill seeking", which could impact 20-30% of the population. I’m not familiar with this side of things, so I’ll just note it in passing. Perhaps what we think is a sign of addiction is in reality a function of age-related thrill seeking unique to a subset of people. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bon courage. I just made the edit discussed above, but you reverted it. If the issue is specifically the footnote about the baboon study, would it be OK for the rest to remain?

Also, I had a look at WP:MEDRS and am I correct in thinking that the issue is that the information about that study came from a primary source? I was not going to include it originally, but I felt it would be wrong to keep the claim that "There are no recorded successful attempts to train animals to self-administer LSD in laboratory settings" when that is no longer the case, and especially when the study was mentioned here (which I think is fine by MEDRS – please correct me if it isn't).

Thanks. Pink Bee (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at that NIH page again, I've just seen the conflict of interest statement. "Drug Science receives an unrestricted educational grant from a consortium of medical psychedelics companies"... I should have looked more carefully before, because it does not sound like that's suitable.

In any case, can the rest not stay? Pink Bee (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think any edit which stuck to verifiable statements sourced to WP:MEDRS sources would be fine. Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)