Jump to content

Talk:LSD/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Is LSD an abbreviation for Lysergic Acid Diethylamide?

DePiep (talk · contribs) removed the word "abbreviated" claiming LSD is not an abbreviation for Lysergic acid diethylamide.[1]. Editor left editing note: "(not an abbr, and no reading disruption eithe by rm that)" which is partially incomprehensible. I reverted on the strength of Dictionary definition,[2] which cites "LB" as abbreviation for pound. Contrary to WP:BRD, editor re-reverted.[3]. I invite editor here to explain and discuss. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Good initial question. -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Answer: "LSD" is not an abbreviation of "Lysergic Acid Diethylamide". End of story. -DePiep (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@DePiep: Do you have a source? Here is mine. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Your are editwarring, not discussing. Just look up "abbreviation". (and take care: one more step I can accuse you of bad faith). -DePiep (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I came here from the notice at WT:PHARM. Grammar'sLittleHelper is correct. LSD is an abbreviation. I think that the confusion here comes from the difference between an abbreviation and an acronym. I suppose the acronym for this compound would be LAD, but an abbreviation, in contrast, is not necessarily the initials of the individual words. Source. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, an abbreviation of something. But NOT of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide. Not a source has been provided. -DePiep (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
It is an abbreviation, according to its inventor: [4]- MrX 02:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • LSD = Lyserg-säure-diäthylamid. from MrX 's source right above. yes... switzerland. we call those acronyms, strictly speaking. acronyms are a form of abbreviation, loosely speaking. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I really hate these kinds of disputes in Wikipedia, over fine differences. I have edited around it here. Hopefully that will work enough for everybody. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • That's fine, but these are not just competing opinions and we don't have to think our way through them or get inventive. Above is the link to Britannica clearly stating in the first line that LSD is the abbreviation, not just for the German, but for the English as well.[5] Apparently, the editor did not test or read the link before replying that "Not a source has been provided." (02:05, 12 March 2016) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Sfarney, are you recommending some change to the current content or is that settled? Jytdog (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog: That editor was just plain wrong. Have you looked at the Britannica link? How could anything be "settled" by coming in here and performing the edit he/she was erroneously enforcing against a succession of reverts? Let me address three points: (1) "Settled" implies there was a proper dispute -- there was none. It was one rogue editor, or an editor gone rogue (WP:NOTHERE), against three WP editors. (2) You were not invited or appointed to "settle" anything like a day care in loco parentis. The situation had already sorted itself out when that editor got h/erself banned. (3) Three other editors had reverted the contentious edit -- please review the history. That is a clear consensus. In your edit, you are clearly operating against consensus, and against the clear and undisputed RS. Now, your turn: What do you think you have accomplished on this page? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I am asking you if you have any changes to propose to the current content. Please discuss that. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Please revert your changes to the state that the consensus of 3 editors reverted it today. Thank you. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for being clear. Let's see if the other editors here have objections to the current wording. Jytdog (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, you apparently used original research when the source plainly says "abbreviated". Also, the source says "Lyserg-säure-diäthylamid" not "Lysergsäure-diäthylamid" as you wrote.- MrX 12:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

this is to me very much of a "the sky is blue" thing. technically LSD is an acronym. Loosely speaking, the term abbreviation can encompass acronyms. We don't need a source to call the sky blue, and it is not OR to call the sky blue. The original argument above was, to be frank, stupid. LSD is not an abbreviation nor an acronym for "Lysergic Acid Diethylamide" - Sfarney was just being a robot without understanding what was actually going on, and I reckon that Depiep knew what was going on and was just messing with Sfarney. In the proposed text nobody wins the stupid argument and importantly the content makes absolute sense. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all your respect and consideration. Your polite language is also a most admirable example of the Wikipedia way. No doubt your personal opinion about the stupidity of the previous argument and the other editors is most edifying for those who are interested in personal opinions. Now let's turn to some sources:
  • LSD, abbreviation of lysergic acid diethylamide, also called lysergide[6]
  • LSD is an abbreviation of the German term Lysergsaure-Diathylamid for lysergic acid diethylamide.[7]
  • LSD Type: Abbreviation Definitions: 1. Abbreviation for lysergic acid diethylamide.[8]
Through the reversions yesterday and the remarks today, you see that the consensus of editors would like the article returned to the condition it was in before you touched it. We don't have to ask them a second time. And I should not have to ask you a second time. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
You have made point clear already, thanks. Let's see what others have to say. We have you and MrX now. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
They have already spoken unanimously yesterday with their reversions. Your pretense to moderate is inappropriate. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
They have not responded to the new content. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
How about you explain why you think your revision is better? We have had more than sufficient reversions on this -- let's cut to the "discuss" part of WP:BRD. You're here, so talk, and lay off the "stupid" stuff when referring to the actions of others. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I did explain already. This is a "the sky is blue" thing. technically LSD is an acronym. Loosely speaking, the term abbreviation can encompass acronyms. We don't need a source to call the sky blue, and it is not OR to call the sky blue. Please be patient and wait for DePiep and Tryptofish to weigh in on the current version, and anybody else who cares. There is no deadline here and nothing to "win". We just need to find content that is good enough for everyone to live with. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • With all due respect and humility, I'd like to point out that you are dead wrong. An acronym is "a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words and pronounced as a separate word, as Wac from Women's Army Corps, OPEC from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or loran from long-range navigation."[9] Another source defines acronym as "Unlike abbreviations, they aren't shorter spellings of words—they're made up of the words' initials."[10] LSD is not an acronym by either definition. You can find the letters in the words, but not as initials, neither in the German (Lysergsaure-Diathylamid)[11] nor the English. LSD is an unpronounceable sequence of letters used as an abbreviation, like "lb" for pound and "Mrs." for mistress. Now tell us, with all those sources cited above, why you insist on removing the word "abbreviation" from the text. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Here is another source on those two words: "Many abbreviations for phrases, however, are pronounced as words: for example, NATO for N(orth) A(tlantic) T(reaty) O(rganization) or radar for ra(dio) d(etecting) a(nd) r(anging). This type of abbreviation is called an acronym. Some acronyms, like radar, laser, scuba, and Gestapo, have become so accepted as normal words that most people are unaware of their acronymic origins."[12] Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please be patient. There is no deadline. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, what a long, strange trip this discussion has been. Someone got blocked over a bitter fight about whether something is an abbreviation or an acronym? There should be a pill for that.
Sez me, it's an acronym in Swiss or German or something, and an abbreviation in English. Big deal. Given that this is the English Wikipedia, and given sourcing that refers to it as abbreviation, I think Jytdog should revert the top language back to saying "abbreviated", but I support Jytdog's new language a little lower on the page, because it seems to explain the background rather nicely. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent reverts by Jytdog on the Effects section

Why the abrupt edit summary "the intention of the "who" tag was not to provide anecdotes or gossip" with no further explanation for the removal of sourced material? This seems rather noncollegial.

I am curious why the editor who has placed numerous tags of various sorts on the article isn't himself addressing the problems that concern him. This overtagging defaces the article, when a couple of tags at the pertinent headings would do the job. He could note the particular instances that bother him here on the talk page and invite a discussion that would more likely result in improving the article than would those unsightly tags that seem to linger for years at so many articles on Wikipedia. Tag bombing interrupts the text's flow for the reader, and places an unfair burden on other editors. Carlstak (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Content about the effects of LSD are biomedical in nature (what happens to a person when they take a drug), and WP:MEDRS is the sourcing guideline for such content. The content you added is based on sources that do not comply with MEDRS. Also, WP:MEDMOS is the manual of style for articles about drugs. We don't describe the effects of drugs based on anecdotes, or highlight how famous people responded to drugs. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
"We don't describe the effects of drugs based on anecdotes". Then why is the Sam Harris anecdotal quote there? And why have you yourself still not added any medical references for verification to address all the tags you've added to the article, if this is your primary concern? This lack of action on your part verges on passive-aggression in the context of your tagging regime. Carlstak (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The "who" tag isn't meant to be replaced with specific examples of people within the LSD-using population. It should be clarified with the characteristics of those people, as reported in a secondary medical source. Anecdotes aren't at all useful in pharmacology articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is only partly medical -- LSD is also important in history and culture. I believe the material that has been added and removed is probably usable, but belongs in a section devoted to history or culture. The "effects" section ought to follow MEDRS referencing principles. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Concur. An article on a cultural phenomenon should include the major actors. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position, I agree that adding content on individuals who have used LSD is fine, even ideal, in the sections on the history or culture of LSD (i.e., LSD#History or LSD#Society and culture); content like this is covered in other articles like History and culture of substituted amphetamines. It's not okay to cover this in the context of describing its recreational or adverse effects though (i.e., in the LSD#Uses or LSD#Effects sections). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Information from the first page of Acid Dreams would be a welcome addition. (Lee, Martin A. and Bruce Shlain. Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, the Sixties, and Beyond (1992) ISBN 978-0-8021-3062-4) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:MEDMOS has a "Society and culture" space where stuff about famous people's experience ~could~ go, or psycho-spiritual discussions of the experiences that people have while on LSD could go. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Psychological Effects subsection is not a pharmacological text in its present form. It reads as an informal exposition describing the psychological effects of LSD in layman's terms rather than as a formal explication of those effects relative to the drug's pharmacology. The edits I made that were subsequently reverted were appropriate to the style of the section as it is written, and as germane to it as the Sam Harris reference with its anecdotal quote. If a strict MEDMOS regime is going to be enforced, the section should be rewritten, and the regime applied consistently to all refs. Granted that the results of psychological testing and even of controlled studies on human psychological responses to LSD can't have the rigor of physiological studies or be interpreted with the same unambiguity, but the psychological effects are far more significant than the physical effects. Much of the research was done before LSD was made illegal in the US (researchers were already feeling the heat from the FDA by 1966); I wouldn't think the literature produced by that research is reliable, especially considering the often freewheeling and not always disciplined approach of the scientists, who were sometimes administering the drug to themselves as well as their subjects. Carlstak (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree that the section needs to be rewritten. The correct way to write an effects section, which should cover the desired recreational effects, is the way it's done in MDMA#Effects. It's straight to the point and covers the recreational effects the same way it covers adverse effects; it is also cited entirely by current medical reviews. This article covers both desired and adverse effects in the effects section (the adverse component needs to be edited out) and includes non-MEDRS compliant sources. Since the topic of this section is drug-induced psychoactive effects (psychopharmacology), MEDRS is required. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It's sadly true. Jolly West and the others who worked for the CIA weren't in it for science -- they wanted a mind -bender and -breaker drug, and they didn't care how they got it or who they had to ruin in the process. And more than that, they didn't have the discipline to do decent scientific research. Their results are more anecdotal than the Electric Cool-aid Acid Test. Almost 10 years and immeasurable wealth blown on the project -- with an unknown number of unwitting subjects poisoned for their amusement -- and that is all we have, now that the research is stopped. To show you how messed up this article is, it still calls LSD a "psychedelic"! That unscientific word of the semispiritual mumbo-jumbo bearded bohunks -- in Wikipedia's own voice, multiple times!
  • Somehow I don't think the "desired recreational effects" can be a subject of scientific research. You would have to dig up interviews with acid-heads in old issues of the San Francisco Oracle to find that material. And then you would be back to the anecdotal. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It was fairly easy to find the desired recreational effects of MDMA in medical reviews. I just happened to find it covered in 2 of the reviews that I used to cite the adverse effects section when I rewrote that. I doubt it's going to be any different for LSD in reviews of its effects on the body. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Personal desires cannot be scientifically cataloged. They often cannot be adequately expressed by the desirer. There might have been some eager preppy pollsters wandering the streets of Haight Ashbury and asking silly multiple choice questions, but I never saw them. And since LSD was never indicated for any medical condition, how can anyone state the "desired" effects? Some wanted to get "high." Some wanted the hallucinations. Some wanted wisdom. Some wanted transcendence. Some wanted an aesthetic boost for poetry, music, or art. Some wanted to dominate others. Some wanted to lose the ego. Some just felt good. Like the song says, some drink to remember, some drink to forget. Get out your clipboards, gentlemen, I'll expect your scientific conclusions in the morning. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Aren't there several scientific fields (psychology, economics, sociology) that attempt to study personal desires? There are ethnographic studies on MDMA use. I'm certain some exist for LSD as well. Sizeofint (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see it on MDMA, unless you refer to the words "for its euphoric and empathogenic effects." LSD would be much harder to classify, given the broad array of effects and the seemingly contra-pleasure elements among the users. As you say, those fields "attempt" to study personal desires. Jytdog is on the hook to come up with the text today. His results may answer the question. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to MDMA#Effects. I imagine the only thing involved in determining desired drug effect is simply asking a bunch of regular users of a particular recreational drug about why they take it. Not particularly complicated IMO. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

True -- the asking is not complicated. The answers, though, take the researcher into various unscientific realms. Can the user answer the question coherently, even to his own satisfaction? Can that answer be collated with other the answers from other people, and would the subjects actually agree that the answers are the same, though worded differently? And then we get into the substantial differences I have named above, ranging from hedonism to its opposite, from fantasy to transcendence, from creativity to passivity ... You might as well survey preschoolers about their favorite colors and why. And then we have the doubtful premise that those who buy from a street vendor get the desired product. Very few illicit drug buyers submit their purchases to laboratory analysis. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • i wanted to get to this today. Tomorrow i will find MEDRS sources and fix this section. There is no use in us belaboring its current suckiness.  :) Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I believe PNAS is a proper peer-reviewed journal[13] and your revert was in error. Please re-re. Grammar's Li'l Helper 18:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer reviewed has nothing to do with it. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Your explanation is requested. Collaborate, please. This is a valuable, fully sourced addition to the encyclopedia . Grammar's Li'l Helper 19:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Please read MEDRS. If you don't understand it, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I read that to mean this contested source is secondary, not primary: Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit (and possible distortions) of hindsight are secondary. ... Many sources can be considered either primary or secondary, depending on the context in which they are examined.[5] Moreover, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual,[17] so that precise definitions are difficult to make. Scientific journal peer-reviewed articles are almost always consider secondary source. Most journal articles are written by the researchers, but the peer review process removes the taint of primary source. I strongly believe you are mistaken. Grammar's Li'l Helper 20:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
That is a primary source. If you look at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions you will see that a primary source is a research paper - one that describes the experiments, the results, and conclusions; a secondary source (a review) is one that looks over a bunch of research papers and draws themes out, and judges those research papers. This is a neuroimaging research paper. (btw, generally people who edit content about health and medicine include the Pubmed PMID in the citation. For this article it is PMID 27071089. This article is too new to be fully indexed yet, but if you look at typical pubmed entry, like PMID 27060000, you will see at the bottom a field called "Publication Types". If it is a review (a secondary source) it will say so there, and if it is "research" ( a primary source) it will say so there. You can also search pubmed to find only reviews.) But yes PMID 27071089 is a primary source per MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright, grateful for the education. Now why is it removed completely from WP? Primary sources are used sometimes with caution, particularly if no secondary are available. Grammar's Li'l Helper 21:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
With weak sources the question goes the other way. What is so extraordinary about this paper that we use it? There are 5000 papers in pubmed on LSD. Why this one? (if you actually read MEDRS, you will see that it provides criteria for helping us choose sources from which to generate content) Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I must apologise. I read the essay top to bottom -- or thought I did, but this time found new information. The first thing that threw me off was the redirect to reliable sources. MEDRS is only a euphemism. Anyway, the answer is clear. Thanks. Grammar's Li'l Helper 21:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
No need to apologize. Your questions were real and I was happy to answer them. Happy editing! Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is a confusing, disjointed, unevenly written mish-mash.

In my opinion, the article is full of useful information, but in its present form is also a confusing, disjointed, unevenly written mish-mash in need of reorganization, if not a complete rewrite. For example: it would be helpful to the reader for the "Effects" section to be explicated before the barren "Uses" section. I imagine most lay readers, if they even make it that far, would rather read the "History" section before the abstruse and technical "Pharmacology" section. Also, one would expect more precise language than "ingesting vast amounts of LSD" in the "Overdose" section; meaningless or POV phrases like "a sense that one's thoughts are spiraling into themselves" or "dazzling and wildly inventive" don't belong in the article; and what the hell is a "psychedelic life style"? The "Forms" subsection says "More than 200 types of LSD tablets have been encountered since 1969 and more than 350 blotter paper designs have been observed since 1975." The source given for this information says "More than 200 types of LSD tablets have been identified since 1969", and "Since 1975 more than 350 paper designs have been classified" but neither it nor the article says by whom. I could personally vouch for at least 100 of the paper designs, but I don't think my say-so would count.;-)

Finally, there are still 7 "citation needed' tags on the article, but as is usually the case on Wikipedia, the citation police have shown little interest in finding the needed cites. Carlstak (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

(weak humor) Though you have to admit, "a confusing, disjointed, unevenly written paisley mish-mash" is rather appropriate -- from a certain point of view. :-)
(serous) Substantively, I agree. There are some good things, but the article needs serious cleanup. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 16:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Some months ago this article was purged of a lot of crappily sourced content. Much of what you see (in terms of unevenness) is a result of that. For structure the article mostly follows WP:PHARMMOS which places "History" near the end. PHARMMOS doesn't say anything about where to place and "effects" section. I had put it before "Uses" but another editor moved it. You will find that most of the articles on recreational drugs are pretty crappy. Sizeofint (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"However, adverse psychiatric reactions such as anxiety, paranoia, and delusions are possible." Cited source is missing.

Cited source for this statement in first paragraph is a 404. Secondary reference links are working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cow trix (talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Lysergic acid diethylamide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Dosage conversion

Can we please use a common measurement (micrograms) for all weight references? Confusing and disjointed to use both grams and micrograms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.60.5 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

LSD and schizophrenia

Is there anything worth salvaging in that article? I think it should otherwise be redirected here; it looks to be mostly garbage. Sizeofint (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Not that I'm an expert, but I don't think you have to be one to see that it's junk. Carlstak (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Junk it is. Once thought to be, turned out it wasn't. Deserves a sentence in the LSD page, and no more. And all the footnotes are blank. Never seen the like. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 06:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
My favorite is the IP editor on the talkpage who accidentally signed his post in the middle of the section header:
Article Qu46.208.166.20 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)ality
This article is really shit, I tried to read it but I couldn't figure out what was going on at all. I'm laughing at how terrible this is. Cheers.
I'm with Sizeofint and Mr. IP. I can't imagine there's anything there worth salvaging. —PermStrump(talk) 07:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Sizeofint (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lysergic acid diethylamide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Overdose section lacks important details

The source provided for the overdose section of this article is the following URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129381/

"Eight patients were seen within 15 minutes of intranasal self-administration of large amounts of pure D-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) tartrate powder." The overdose section of this article makes no mention that the fatal 1,000 to 7,000ug doses were administrated intranasally. It should be noted that this is an incredibly uncommon method of administration for LSD, as LSD is normally taken orally and that from my research at least I cannot find a single source that shows when administered orally LSD is fatal in doses above 1,000ug. In fact, I cannot find a single recorded case of any dosage at all being administered orally resulting in a fatality. There are even anecdotal reports of people taking doses that are an order of magnitude higher than what is described here, as high as 30,000 micrograms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrimp4074 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You can not overdose on LSD because I have seen guys do like 15 tabs of LSD at once & he was just fine & is still alive to day Skrodow (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have never heard either of any case of oral overdose outside of those contrived conditions of the labs above deliberately doing so to put their human guinea pigs at risk. The article should reflect this along with the contrived and pointless nature of both the research and the article section. Mattjs (talk)

An overdose does not have to be lethal or life-threatening. It can simply mean having too much. Sizeofint (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps but not appoint to be overstated per: [14].

But you have just clued me to the symptoms diagram of the upper chest: Now indeed I suspect that these symptoms may be associated only with the contrived lab overdoses above and not normal usage and dosage. If so then the diagram and related pieces of the article will have to be correctly cited/referenced or else these things WILL be removed. It seems to me that there may well be serious un-scientific anti-drug POV creeping into this article and over-stating its case by using the technique of baffling the common reader with bullshit to do so. 121.44.104.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have retrieved the sources for that image from the original PNG file associated with it. The symptoms don't seem unrealistic. Sizeofint (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Citations are required including for and within the diagram label text: for a typical dose of <=100 micro grams (that's right folks: 100 x 10^-6 grams!) that has effects upon little else but the brain rather than an overdose which might well have the systemic effects illustrated. If it isn't clear which is being referred to then the diagram should and will be removed. Elsewhere in the article uncited or inadequately cited bits particularly as regards symptoms will be removed in a few weeks when I return: POV be gone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.104.240 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is any policy that requires citations within a diagram. In fact that would be highly unusual. Citations in the description are generally acceptable. The diagram isn't talking about overdose symptoms but typical symptoms. If you consider that your nervous system controls the rest of your body there is no reason to believe that the small size of LSD doses preclude systemic effects elsewhere. If you are going to work on the sourcing for this article please read WP:MEDRS. Sources need to be from secondary literature (e.g. review articles and meta-analyses). Sizeofint (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

inaccurate effects of LSD

Pseudohallucinations are not a effect of psychedelics nor does the source have any mention of "pseudohallucinations". This should be fixed because the drug has no correlation to the definition of the word. A more accurate phrase would just be "internal and external hallucinations", as this is exactly what happens, nothing is "pseudo" about psychedelics and nothing on them seem unreal. Whoever wrote that might feel that you can see unicorns on LSD but that's not the case, one should research the effects of the substance before writing about its effects on the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.156.165 (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Typo "Good trips are simulating and pleasurable"

This should say stimulating. The trips aren't simulating anything.

 Done, thanks for the notice. Sizeofint (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"LSD" stands for "Lysergsäurediäthylamid"

In the first sentence after the name the abbreviation for lysergic acid diethylamide is refered as LSD, but no mention that his stands for the german "Lysergsäurediäthylamid". One can find the german translation out by reading further, but I think this could be mentioned in the sake of completeness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudvalley99 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. The "S" is not part of "Lysergic" as I had always guessed, but from the German "säure" component indicating "acid". As soon as I have a good reference, I'd like to put that in.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
been discussed to death already - see the archives. Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Ouch, that was a pretty messy dispute. I can see why you don't want to revisit it.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2017

Add New section: Areas of the Brain affected by LSD Lysergic Acid Diethylamid (LSD) is a serotonergic hallucinogen which is actually better able to bind to serotonin receptors than serotonin itself. Once bound, LSD is able to decrease neuronal oscillations, especially in areas of densely expressed 5-HT2A receptors like the visual cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, the parahippocampus, the retionsplenial cortex, and various other areas of the default mode network. One of the most well-known effects of LSD has on the brain are its marked influence on the visual cortex resulting in visual hallucinations. A study performed in March 2016, modern neuroimaging was used to track the effects of LSD in the brain, using three complementary neuroimaging techniques: arterial spin labeling (ASL), blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) measures, and magnetoencephalography (MEG), during resting state conditions [1] to compare brain activity between resting “normal” brain activity and activity after LSD was administered. This study was able to identify the areas of the brain with increased and decreased activity which correlate with and would contribute to the hallucinations.

The study was performed under eyes-closed, task free, resting conditions. In these conditions there should be little to no activity in the visual cortex(V1) and during this time however the scans showed increased activity in the V1 including increased blood flow, “these increases correlated positively with ratings of complex imagery” [2]. Also observed in the V1 were increases in the resting state functional connectivity (RSFC) and decreases in alpha power. Alpha wavescause a “functional inhibition of task irrelevant areas” [3]. For example, when performing a visual task alpha power would decrease in the V1 allowing it to function while the alpha power might increase in other areas like the auditory cortex. On LSD, the decrease in the alpha wave inhibitor allows for increases in connectivity or desegregation of different brain regions which allows other senses like touch and sound to contribute to the visual experience, this is referred to as synesthesia, where a person is able to “see” smells or sounds. Another study which focused on ayahuasca hallucinations, used fMRI scans to compare eye-open conditions against eyes-closed conditions after the consumption of ayahuasca and found, Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).. This could be contributed to by other areas of the brain which are also more active after the consumption of psychedelics. The scans also revealed Brodmann areas, which is part of the retrosplenial cortex, associated with episodic memory and contextual associations also were more active during these visual hallucinations which correlates to the desegregation of the V1 on LSD. The psychedelics cause the visual cortex to acts as though there is an external stimulus when in fact there is none. Under normal eye-open conditions you would expect to find increase CBF, decreased alpha power, and increased RSFC, which is instead what is observed in eyes-closed conditions of psychedelics, the visual cortex is essentially “seeing with eyes closed” and the desegregation between the Brodmann areas and the visual cortex allow increased communication of episodic memories including emotion to color the visual experience of the hallucinations (de Araujo et al., 2012).

References

  1. ^ (Carhart-Harris, Muthukumaraswamy, Roseman, Kaelen, Droog, Murphy,... & Leech, 2016)
  2. ^ (Carhart-Harris et al., 2016)
  3. ^ (Jensen & Mazaheri, 2010)

Bri nichols (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We base content about health on recent literature reviews or statements by major medical/scientific bodies, per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017

Remove "...in the conformational state of the drug..." Under Pharmacodynamics, please change "The diethylamide group of LSD forms a "lid" in the conformational state of the drug..." to "The extracellular loop 2 leucine 209 residue of the 5-HT2B receptor forms a 'lid' over LSD..." 152.23.168.53 (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Sizeofint (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
also  Done Sizeofint (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Lysergic acid diethylamide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017

Please change link on glutamate to point to "gluatamate (neurotransmitter)" page. Nickfiacco (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved - consensus is clearly against the renaming of this article. DrStrauss talk 13:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


Lysergic acid diethylamide → LSD – The common name for the substance is "LSD", not the scientific name. Gaioa (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia should use commonly used names for articles, even should the common name be formally incorrect. For instance, Ringo Starr is not titled "Richard Starkey", Chloroform is not titled "Trichloromethane", and so on. I say we rename it to simply "LSD" for clarification and ease-of-finding. Of course, the name itself, [15], redirects here, so it's not a problem by itself. Only a formality of WP:COMMONNAME. Also, there is nothing wrong with the rest of the article, and the intro of Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), also known as acid, is... is excellent, even more so with the title of "LSD". But rename it, I say. I would do it right away, but I don't wanna shock all you drug- and medication- writers without a second opinion.
Gaioa (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I would not necessary be opposed to this. Pubchem calls it lysergide as well https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Lysergide. Sizeofint (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Would it not be better to keep it the way it is? Most people searching for LSD do indeed want the drug so 'LSD' properly redirects here. For the others there is the disambiguation page, to which the hatnote directs them. Sizeofint (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is unambiguous, while the proposed move title is ambiguous. People searching for (the Wikipedia article) "LSD" usually want this article, thus this is the appropriate redirect target, with the hatnote for readers looking for a different acronym. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Axl. Either way would function fine because of redirects, but lack of ambiguity is a worthy objective. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notable People who used LSD

Doc Ellis claimed to throw a no hitter on June 12, 1970. Djwedge (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Djwedge: you what, mate? SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 20:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I think they'd like to see Doc Ellis added to the Notable individuals section. It's a reasonable request, but I'd like to see some sign of consensus. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Even if Ellis's claim were spurious, I think it's impressive for sheer chutzpah on his part—notable either way. Totally believable, though. I aced a biology exam on some double-domed white lightning —really pure stuff. Thumbs up from this editor. Carlstak (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2018

To conform to MOS:US, uses of U.S. should be changed to US as the article has other country abbreviations (viz. UK). Thanks, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have retained the previous style for citations which use that style. Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Grayfell: Why would the publisher names in citations and the external links not be changed accordingly? I should note that US is used elsewhere in the references too. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that citations should match the reference as much as possible, not necessarily the MOS. The U.S. National Library of Medicine, for example, abbreviates it that way on their website. For reasons of WP:V, my understanding is that we should defer to these practices to better facilitate tracking down references in case of WP:LINKROT or similar. Obviously this is extremely unlikely to be the deciding factor, and this may be too pedantic even for Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Dubious.

 "The Grateful Dead were inextricably linked to LSD in the United States, and Grateful Dead concerts provided the primary distribution network for LSD through the mid-1990s"

Maybe A primary network, but not the primary network. How would that even work? Professional drug dealers that tour around the country with the band selling LSD? (I'm sure they did, but I doubt that was a main source nationally speaking). What about places they rarely visited? You only got a chance to buy it once every so many years when the Dead came into the region? Midlevel suppliers had to travel to where-ever they were playing to stock up, and/or stock up when they were in town and hope the supply lasts until they return again? No other drug market works remotely like this, and I see no reason LSD would be different. Assuming each region had its own supply independent of GD concerts, I really doubt the amount sold at concerts outweighed the rest of the country's sources; depends on what you mean by primary. Largest single distribution route, perhaps, but that's different. A lot of acid was sold at Dead concerts, and likely the regional supply and use rate increased for a while when the band visited a region, but tats about it. That doesn't make it the primary distribution network for LSD any more than saying discos were the primary resource for cocaine...and that would at least make some sense, since a disco doesn't move all over the country irregularly. And how can someone prove a claim like that anyway? AnnaGoFast (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This source states categorically on page 181 (not given in the citation) that "Grateful Dead tour is the distribution network for LSD in the United States because their audience remains its number one consumer. Dead shows, with their rubbed-smooth, calypso-scented Dionysian portals, remain how many people are initiated to the psychedelic experience." Besides being written in unintelligible English, this unsupported journalistic drivel is not a suitable source for such a sweeping assertion, and has no place as a citation in an encyclopedia article. No scholarly works will be found to support such a ridiculously broad statement. As Anna says, it's unprovable, and it should be removed from the article. Carlstak (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey, just noticed the edit the other day on my Watchlist regarding this part of the article. I didn't put that section in originally, but I'm almost positive there is a DEA Threat Assessment source (not sure which year, possibly more than one) that I've read which states this information. I can think of numerous other sources for this information, but the DEA Threat Assessment one is the best I can think of for Wikipedia sourcing purposes. They are available online still, or definitely are through the Web Archive. I will try to remember to look it up later when I have time and will add to and edit the section if so, unless someone else wants to look it up.jlcoving (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Why the body picture?

The picture titled "Physical effects of LSD" seems unnecessary. Most of the effects listed in the picture are already mentioned in the text, and the ones that aren't should simply be added. I don't see a need for a picture showing the reader the location of the mouth, eyes, heart, etc. in a human body, as this is wp:Common knowledge. CodeTalker (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. In addition the template for the picture was originally designed for things like alcohol that listed the chronic effects it has specifically highlighting all the organs that can fail. It's use to describe acute effects many of which are pretty benign. Now that you've pointed it out, when I got to the stupid use of a genetic template that actually told me nothing of any importance it distracted me from the content. It's been a week without any argument in support of its use so I'll remove it. If anyone felt strongly about it they are most welcome to defend its use. User:Methylated603 (talk) 12:31 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018

Reference 36 is a dead link (already marked). The article being referenced is officially rehosted here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673610614626 DarkReviver (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done  spintendo  12:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

In "In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) beleived the drug might be useful for mind control so tested it on people, some without their knowledge, in a program called MK-Ultra", the word believed is misspelled as "beleived". Change "beleived" to "believed"! KrazIvan (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Entheogenic Myth

The Entheogenic Myth does not belong in a lexicon, and even here right next an absurd hallucination image. You should know better. (unsigned comment by 84.208.136.53)

The image there is simply an example of a commonly encountered form of LSD -- blotter paper with a design, it is not specific to the Spiritual subheading. The term entheogen is not a "myth", but is a term to refer to use of psychoactive substances to aid in inducing a spiritual experience. While use of LSD for this purpose may not have a long, well established cultural history of hundreds of years of ritual use, it certainly has provided life changing spiritual experiences. --Thoric (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Less sympathetic quotes

There is a lot of sympathetic quotes related to LSD. Balancing the article with some of the other side would be healthy.

For instance. "In a culture where a lot of people just fake it, I think in the whole hippie times, Wendy Carlos (Switched On Bach) was the real acidmessiah. He turned gay. " - unknown.

His work is really LSD is GOD type stuff. While probably most other stuff is heroin. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.136.53 (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018

A sentence in Section 8.2 Legal status - Czech Republic doesn't make logical sense. Replace this sentence:

Under the Regulation No. 467/2009 Coll, possession of more than 5 doses of LSD was to be considered smaller than large for the purposes of the Criminal Code and was to be treated as a misdemeanor subject to a fine equal to a parking ticket.

with corrected:

Under the Regulation No. 467/2009 Coll, possession of no more than 5 doses of LSD was to be considered smaller than large for the purposes of the Criminal Code and was to be treated as a misdemeanor subject to a fine equal to a parking ticket.

95.80.225.179 (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Treatment of misuse

LSD can be misused thus the source says "There are no FDA-approved medications to treat addiction to LSD or other hallucinogens."

This was summarized as "There is no specific treatment for those who misuse the drug."

Addiction is low not none. Use still results in negative outcomes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. Here is my issue with the word "misuse". Let's talk about prescription opioids. "Misuse" does not distinguish between "recreational use" and "addictive use"; I think we should use better and more specific terminology in Wikipedia. For any drug that is not used medically (heroin, for example), any use can be termed "misuse", but that doesn't properly describe what is happening. Again, this fails to discriminate between occasional recreational use and compulsive addictive use. The sentence as it is (in my opinion) oversimplifies to the point of confusion or falsity. How about alcohol now that a study says that it is never healthy in any dose? Should ALL alcohol consumption be described as "misuse" because it isn't being used for lab sterilization purposes?
How about, "While addition to LSD is rare among those who have used the drug, there are no known treatments for addiction, when it does occur." (or something to that effect.) (We do have "treatments" for those who "misuse" = "recreationally use" the drug, it is called jail.) --Avatar317 (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

Change singular "Effect" to "Effects" for correct semantics

Change the 4'th sentence of the first paragraph: start with the word "Effects" plurar, instead of "Effect" singular.

from: Effect typically begin within half an hour and can last for up to 12 hours.

to: Effects typically begin within half an hour and can last for up to 12 hours. Ggborn (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done AntiCedros (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2018

There is a typo at the beginning of the article: "There are no known treatments for addiction, if it occur." - should be either "if it can occur" or "should it occur" depending on what is actually meant (it is ambiguous).

This may just be semantics, but: the "if" may imply that one cannot be addicted to LSD. If that claim is made, it should be explicit, whereas the article states before that LSD "does not appear to be very addictive". The later article much farther down then states "LSD is not addictive" (well-cited, I add) which seems a contradiction of sorts (alternatively acknowledging addiction may be possible while later categorically stating it is not). It comes off kind of flip-floppy. I think it may be referring exclusively to physical dependency whereas the former use might be about a more holistic substance abuse view. If this is the intent, it should be clarified. I suggest just removing the "very" to maintain consistency. 50.71.37.108 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 Already done The letter "s" was added to make the word "occurs", which I believe solves the grammar issue.  Spintendo  13:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

Change "snorted" to "insufflated" Oh venner (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: "insufflated" does not appear to be an English word. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: The term they're likely thinking of is insufflation.  Spintendo  19:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018

I am requesting that the first sentence of the second paragraph be changed back. It used to read "LSD is not addictive" and it was changed to read "LSD does not appear to be very addictive." This does not reflect primary sources that all state LSD has no physiologically addictive properties whatsoever. Psychological addictions to LSD have rarely been documented throughout human history, and most of the documented cases involved other preexisting mental disorders, such as the case of Pink Floyd's original lead singer, Syd Barrett, who had schizophrenia. 2606:A000:4C8A:3000:F93E:DA9:523A:138D (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Ref says "For example, LSD is not considered an addictive drug because it doesn't cause uncontrollable drug-seeking behavior. However, LSD does produce tolerance, so some users who take the drug repeatedly must take higher doses to achieve the same effect. " and "For example, LSD, which is widely abused, does not appear to be addictive." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Adjusted Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I still think saying that it doesnt "appear to be addictive" doesn't reflect the ref. It would more accurately reflect the ref to say "LSD is not considered to be an addictive drug". I also think that we should split the part about tolerance into a separate sentence as addiction potential and tolerance are two different properties, and one does not necessarily have anything to do with the other. Lastly, if you scroll down to the middle of the page there is a sentence under the tolerance subheading that explicitly reads "LSD is not addictive". We should update this to reflect the source used in the lead section to maintain consistency throughout the article, and move it under a separate subheading labelled "Addiction Potential". I realize a lot more work could be done on this article, and the coverage of psychedelics and entheogens on Wikipedia could greatly be improved. When I have more time on my hands I may even do a rewrite. Until then I feel that the suggested changes will make the article much more organized and encyclopedic. 2606:A000:4C8A:3000:F9BB:600C:FFE2:E182 (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 Note: Editor 2606:A000:4C8A:3000:F9BB:600C:FFE2:E182 has modified the original request after an initial decision was reached in regards to the request. See revision difference here. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. While re-reviewing the request I noticed the first source did not mention "does not appear to be addictive" while the second source in the article does. Based on the initial response, the sources in the article and the follow-up response by 2606:A000:4C8A:3000:F9BB:600C:FFE2:E182 I feel this edit requires more discussion and a consenus to be reached before being implemented. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki text does not match content of cited sources

Under "Overdose" it states "As of 2008 there were no documented fatalities attributed directly to an LSD overdose.[7] Despite this several behavioral fatalities and suicides have occurred due to LSD.[64][65] "

The given reference [64] points to a list of abstracts of studies into the human health effects of LSD - none of which APPEARS to refer to fatalities or suicides unequivocally, or even probably, due to LSD. I say "appears" because I haven't (obviously) read all of the cited papers, but I can't see anything in the abstracts which indicates any of these papers involve a properly documented instance of death due to LSD.

The given reference [65] directs to a website which is equivocal about suicides (although tending toward scepticism). On the subject of behavioural deaths due to LSD usage, it is more open to the suggestion whilst still remaining somewhat sceptical.

Using those references, the sentence should surely read:

"attributed directly to an LSD overdose[7], and although LSD has often been claimed to have caused suicides or behavioural fatalities, there is little documented evidence to support this.[64][65]"

or

"As of 2008 there were no documented fatalities attributed directly to an LSD overdose.[7] Despite this several behavioral fatalities and suicides may have occurred due to LSD.[64][65]"

at the very least — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.246.6 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Minor error under pharmacodynamics

"The extracellular loop 2 leucine 209 residue of the 5-HT2B receptor forms a 'lid' over LSD that appears to trap it in the receptor, and this was implicated in the potency and functional selectivity of LSD and its very slow dissociation rate from the 5-HT2 receptors from the 5-HT2 receptors."

in this sentence, 5-HT2B should read 5-HT2B as mentioned above:

"LSD was found to stay bound to both the 5-HT2A and 5-HT2B receptors for an exceptionally long amount of time," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.226.180 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Contradicting info in article

On the "Adverse effects" section, the source for the graphics measuring drugs in dependence, physical harm, and social harm ranked LSD as more addictive than 7 others. A few lines down the article, in the 'Tolerance' sub-header, it is stated that LSD is not addictive. Both statements are sourced, however the last one fails to clarify if that lack of addiction potential is physical or psychological (many people browsing Wikipedia do not know this difference exists). What gives? Shouldn't the article be updated to hold all of these findings in the same place, and with more clarity? YuriNikolai (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018

Long-term flashbacks may occur despite no further use.(referance link https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/commonly-abused-drugs-charts#lsd)

The article linked to this statement declares that HPPD is the cause of frightening acid flashbacks which is false. HPPD and flashbacks are separate phenomenon as stated by the DSM-5.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_perception_disorder?wprov=sfla1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5?wprov=sfla1 In addition to this the other information displayed on drugbuse.gov about the condition HPPD is also flase.

I recommend changing this statement to

"Frequent users may develope a condition called HPPD characterized by a continual presence of sensory disturbances, most commonly visual." With a referance to the DSM or the wiki for HPPD https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_perception_disorder?wprov=sfla1

Failing that simply removing the referance to drugabuse.gov or removing the statement all together would also be satisfactory. TruthHappinessPeace (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources are authoritative in Wikipedia, not editors' assertions. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. The content should be tweaked, and I will do that. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks,Jytdog sorry my information wasn't as helpful as I had intended this is my first time contributing, and I'm still learning the ropes. TruthHappinessPeace (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

New research re. thalamus

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/28/study-shows-how-lsd-messes-with-brains-signalling

also relevant: the scanning techique used is also highly novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.29 (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2019

Caharvey11 (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)LSD was first documented in the scientific community in 1943 after its psychedelic effects was discovered by Albert Hoffmann[1]. As news of the psychedelic effects of LSD spread, research of the drug steadily increased in popularity amongst the scientific community. Many researchers were interested in its effect on an individual's brain, specifically the brain of someone suffering from schizophrenia[2]. As scientific inquiry into LSD progressed, there began a growing interest in the use of LSD alongside therapy in order to treat a multitude of mental health problems, the most notable being its use in curing alcoholism[3]. This slowly took LSD from the lab into the world of therapy. This positive view of LSD as a medicinal drug did not last for long. With the work of Richard Alpert and Timothy Leary, in 1967 a psychedelic counterculture based around their newly created religion, The League for Spiritual Discovery, began to emerge in North America[2]. The push of the this group encouraged people to take LSD for the purpose of having a spiritual experience. The influence of this counter culture created a crisis for the government as the popularity of LSD and the culture behind was opposed by many on the outside of the counterculture. This inevitably caused the criminalization of LSD, making it a schedule one narcotic in 1965[4]. With this written into law, research into LSD in the use of psychotherapy faded into obscurity for decades, only beginning to make a comeback in the 2000’s[5]. LSD is slowly making a comeback in the world of scientific research, however the only place that LSD assisted Psychotherapy is offered is in Switzerland[5].

^ Dyck, Erika, PhD. "LSD: A New Treatment Emerging from the Past: CMAJ CMAJ." Canadian Medical Association.Journal 187, no. 14 (Oct 06, 2015): 1079-1080. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/docview/1720440382?accountid=14906. ^ Jump up to: a b Dyck, Erika (2008). Psychedelic Psychiatry: LSD from Clinic to Campus. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 107. ^ Dyck, Erika, PhD. "LSD: A New Treatment Emerging from the Past: CMAJ CMAJ." Canadian Medical Association.Journal 187, no. 14 (Oct 06, 2015): 1079-1080. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/docview/1720440382?accountid=14906. ^ Robert F. Ulrich and Bernard M. Patten. "The Rise, Decline, and Fall of LSD." Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 34, no. 4 (1991): 561-578. https://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed June 16, 2019). ^ Jump up to: a b Liechti M. E. (2017). Modern Clinical Research on LSD. Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 42(11), 2114–2127. doi:10.1038/npp.2017.86

 Not done Sorry, but your good faith edit request would add text that simply restates information already included in the article. Please see the help page Footnotes to learn how to make the markup for footnotes and Citing sources for guidance on citations. Carlstak (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

LSD

Correction regarding, there is no treatment for LSD. Actually in 1966, the founder of the Hare Krishna movement had many disciples who were taking LSD & were drug addicts but they were cured by Bhakti Yoga process and the process of mantra meditation. Roshan Panigrahy (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Addiction Potential

Concerning the NIH document linked in reference number 16, the text of the Wiki article states that this document claims that LSD is addictive. However, the document never states this. Indeed, on a separate NIH.gov page located at https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/hallucinogens , there is the following:

For example, LSD is not considered an addictive drug because it doesn't cause uncontrollable drug-seeking behavior. However, LSD does produce tolerance, so some users who take the drug repeatedly must take higher doses to achieve the same effect.

Tolerance and addiction are of course not the same thing. I feel that this statement should be removed. 2603:3018:1502:62E1:F68E:38FF:FE94:DF34 (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2019

"Beginning in the 1950s, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began a research program code named Project MKULTRA. The CIA introduced LSD to the United States, purchasing the entire word's supply for $240,000 and propagating the LSD, through CIA front organizations to American hospitals, clinics, prisons and research centers."

Change "entire word's supply" to "entire world's supply" 73.61.20.18 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! NiciVampireHeart 23:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LSD/Archive_7&oldid=1144319126"