![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I cant find an article on blotter paper. Should one be made if not already?
This entry has won the West Dakota Prize for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/effects.htm
A very rare experience. Total loss of visual connection with reality. The senses cease to function in the normal way. Total loss of self. Transcendental experiences of cosmic unity Merging with space, other objects, or the universe. Out of body experience. Ecstasy. "Entity contact". The loss of reality becomes so severe that it defies explanation. Pure white light. Difficult to put into words.
That sounds like Ketamine. Anyone have some more info on this? Like how high of a dose would be needed to produce an out of body experience with LSD or how often it happens? -- Arm
To commentors and editors: please bear in mind that the proper abbreviation for microgram is "mcg" or "μg". The abbreviation, "mg," means milligram. There is quite a difference, as 1 mg = 1000 μg. This may seem a picky detail, but for the sake of precision it should be observed.
Why is "hallucinogenic" in quotation marks throughout the article? Is there really any question that LSD induces hallucinations?
-kwertii
I Think LSD is the best creation in the world. I have been using for 25 years now and it has improved my general well-being. Painting, creativeness and thought patterns are improved imensely. I take it in Drop form and about 300mg each time. I understand why it is illegal. Parties and acid do not improve yourself but lsd and mental thoughts make you more intelliget. I can see different situations from all different angles when confronted with situations..So..yes i believe it can be benificial to some people only
160% purity ? Are you sure it's per 50ug not per 100ug ?
Here is the original quote from the DEA ( http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/lsd/lsd-4.htm):
That just describes how much drug is in each "hit" and 50 mg is some kind of average dose. Not anything about purity of drug as delivered. I presume the mean 50 mg of pure (100%) LSD per each hit. ---rmhermen
Dr. Bob, can you send the image to jasonr@bomis.com? Or just ask Jason for the URL of that upload page (I don't have it myself)?
I am idly wondering how many people with doctorates are working on Wikipedia. If it's a very large number, that could be a very good PR statistic. (This isn't to say that people without Ph.D.'s are not welcome, of course!) -- LMS
I've added reference to the rabbit hyperthermia model which is one of the common sources of "numbers" concerning relative potencies. Kaet (aka Dr. Kaet, :)).
Article read "(Despite rulings that the First Amendment protects religions even if they do not make sense, courts today tend to reject such defenses in "drug" cases.)" -- not only is that very U.S.-centric, it's not NPOV, and completely fails to understand the U.S. Supreme Court's logic. -- SJK
LSD (Libra, Solidi, Denarii) is also the common abbreviation for the British money system prior to 1971. There is obviously potential for ambiguity here when we get round to doing an article on British Coinage. -- Derek Ross
SJK, if you mean the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that the state does not need to show compelling interest to restrict the free exercise of religion provided it doesn't aim the law at particular religions, then I admit I don't understand their logic. Not only does it contradict precedent, but Scalia himself ruled that New Jersey couldn't restrict the Boy Scouts' constitutional rights even with a law that applied to everyone. Would you mind explaining it? -- Dan
I wasn't referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the compelling state interest test. Even before that, the U.S. Supreme Court had always rejected the use of illegal drugs for religious purposes, with the exception of the use of peyote by the Native American Church. Most countries with constitutional protection of freedom of religion prohibit use of illegal drugs even for religious purposes, and their courts don't consider that a violation of freedom of religion. Constitutional protections of freedom of religion are intended primarily to protect what are traditionally considered to be religious practices, and which can be carried out with little harm to others: e.g. prayer, meditation, singing, giving sermons, printing and distributing literature, etc. They are not intended to give religions a carte blanche exclusion from the law. Otherwise we'd have to allow the practice of such religious activities as human sacrifice.
I'm not saying I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court on this -- I don't support drug prohibition. But "(Despite rulings that the First Amendment protects religions even if they do not make sense, courts today tend to reject such defenses in "drug" cases.)" is biased, and ignores the Court's logic. -- SJK
Using what quantitative test of potency?
Perhaps people familiar with writing about organic chemistry could answer my small point about language. As I understand the proper name for the substance is "d-lysergic acid ..." with a lowere case "d". Would it not be the case that this would even override the use of a capital "D" even at the beginning of a sentence. Eclecticology 02:46 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)
Portions of the manufacture section appear to be cribbed directly from the DEA website. Is that a copyright issue, is it public domain, and since the DEA is not a neutral party, is the info (particularly w/r/t synthesis from morning glory seeds) corroborated from other sources.
I'm inclined to believe the MK-ULTRA CIA experimentation story, but since it smacks of conspiracy theory, can someone mention the source of this info to try and keep a NPOV? "According to..." or "There are some who believe that...", etc. mjb 04:23 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
The MKULTRA information is all from declassified CIA documents released in the early 1990's. The experimentation at Edgewood US Army base and the public experiments in NYC are all backed up by this declassified documentation.
OK, I'm no expert in this area, but ergotamine tartrate is almost certainly not the isolation product from ergot, ergotamine is. However, the free lysergic acid amides, such as ergotamine or LSD, are prone to decomposition when exposed to light, heat or air, and the tartrate salts are less prone to that decomposition. The 8th edition of the Merck Index doesn't speak of the isolation of ergotamine tartrate from ergot, rather, it gives a reference with ergotamine, that being Stoll, Helvetica Chemica Acta 28, 1283 (1945). The Wikipedia probably needs an article on ergotamine itself, it's given to mothers during delivery and otherwise has medicinal uses. My recollection is also that ergotamines can be isolated from Hawaiian woodrose seeds and morning glory seeds, though not in the quantity you can get from the ergot fungus.
Finally, comments to the effect that the synthesis of LSD is somehow difficult and extreme needs to be moderated by the observation that a student of chemistry who has completed a year of organic chemistry and lab at a US university is fully capable of this synthesis (if not experienced in it). All you're making is an acid amide, for cryin' out loud. Dwmyers 01:01, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The article quotes "LSD users do, however, exhibit tolerance; LSD's effects diminish with frequent, repeated use, especially over short periods of time."
Under the headline Flashbacks, there are some common thories of causes of LSD flashbacks mentioned. However, the most common explanation I know is missing. I first heard it from Robert Anton Wilson and immediately felt it to be a very good and fitting explanation:
The mind is capable of many different "states". We have sober wakefulness, deep sleep, REM sleep, alertness, anger, etc. Some of theses possible states are harder to reach than other (for instance egoloss) but all are more or less reachable by conventional yogic practice (without drugs). Now, a flashback can best be considered as nothing but a change in mental state. A person with LSD experience have a much higher chance of reaching one of the more esoteric states since that person has already "been there". A spontaneous change to such a mental state might be very frightening to someone not very experienced with consciousness change/exploration.
Maybe I could get details of where (in what book/lecture) Wilson gives his analysis on the subject.
I've taken LSD myself, but I don't think that it enhances "thinking" or creativity. It creates certain visual patterns which are quite well depicted in psychedelic art. However the patterns are always the same and as such not very creative. It's main features are colorfullness, repetition and fractal geometry. That's it. And "thinking" is in no way enhanced under LSD, on the contrary, under acute influence of LSD your judgement and intelligence is severely RESTRAINED.
To the question of hallocinations: Yes, LSD only distorts external input. You'll see geometrical patterns on objects, imaginary movements of their shape and size, but the object itself is always real and never completly imaginary. The same for audio input, a person talking far away from you can appear as if he is close to you whispering into your ear, and the sound can be severely distorted - however the sentence you'll hear is always real and never imaginary and as such no real hallocination.
What about the method of action? Lacking the data to immediately contribute, the best I can do is download my recollection that LSD is a serotonin agonist. Other hallucinogens agonize other receptors - mescalline might be a noradrenaline agonist, but it certainly doesn't work like methamphetamine or cocaine.
Method of action is an important consideration with any drug, and lets us study drug policies in an informed context.
Bird 22:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Re: Steve Wozniak being removed from "notables". Indeed, he claims on his site that he never used LSD. So a user removed him, citing this. OK. However, it's interesting to note that he told TIME Magazine (approx. 8-10 years ago) that the concept of the first Apple PC came to him during an LSD trip. Given Jobs' fairly extensive LSD use at the time, it's quite hard to believe that Wozniak just made that up. But I suppose we take him at his word? (His most recent word, that is.) Might it be appropriate to include a quote from the article? Or should we just leave him out? It certainly, in this writer's opinion, is an informative tidbit in re: the impact psychedelics had on the high-tech revolution.
-- 207.31.248.155 15:39, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I think the "notables" section is interesting (as opposed to for example the possibly endless list of cocaine notables), but isn't it growing rather large? Maybe it should be moved to a page of it's own?
hey, can someone provide a list of common/slang names for LSD? i think that would be really helpful. JoeSmack (talk) 18:41, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
A, acid
barrels, Bart Simpson (specific blotter), Battery acid, Beast, Beavis & Butthead (specific blotter), Bells, Big D, Bird head, Black acid (lsd or lsd/pcp combo), Black Star, Black Sunshine, Black tabs, Blackbird (specific blotter), Blaze, Blotter, Blotter acid, Blotter cube, Blue acid, Blue Barrels, Blue Chairs, Blue Cheers, Blue Fly (LSD from NYC), Blue Heaven(s), Blue Microdot, Blue Mist, Blue Moons, Blue Star (specific blotter), Blue Vials, Book (100 dosage units), Brown Bombers, Brown Dots
California Sunshine, Candy Flip (LSD + MDMA combo), Candy Flipping on a String (LSD, MDMA and Cocaine combi), Cap, Caps, Casper the ghost, Caviar, Cheap basing, Cheers, Chief, Chinese dragons, Chocolate chips, Church (specific blotter), Cid, Class, Coffee, Colors, Conductor, Contact Lens, Crackers, Crystal tea, Cube (sugarcube), Cupcakes, D, Deeda, Dental Floss, Diablo (specific blotter), Dinosaurs (specific blotter), Domes (a form of lsd (?)), Doses, Dots (microdots), Double Dome, Double Dreads (LSD + Amphetamine combo), Dragon (specific blotter)
El Cid, Electric Kool Aid, Ellis Day, Elvis, Felix the Cat, Fields, Flash, Flashers (LSD that is very hallucinogenic (?)), Flat Blues, Flats, Flying Triangle (specific blotter), Frisco Special/Frisco Speedball (Cocaine, Heroin and LSD combo), Frogs, Fry Gel caps (mistakenly used in place of "geltab"), Geltab (LSD form), Ghost, Golden dragon, Golf balls, Goofys, Grape parfait, Green Double domes, Green Single domes, Green Wedge, Grey Shields (specific blotter)
Hats, Hawaiian Sunshine, Hawk, Haze, Headlights, Heaven, Heavenly, Hits (dosage unit)
Illusions, Infinity (LSD that lasts for a long period of time), Instant Zen
Jesus Christ acid (potent)
Kaleidoscope (specific blotter)
L, LAD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide), Laogor, Lason daga, Lason sa daga, LBJ, Leary's, Lens, Lids, Lime acid, Live Spit and Die, Logor, Loony toons, LSD-25, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Mellow yellow, Microdot(s) (LSD form), Mighty Quinn, Mind Blow, Mind Detergent, Mist, Moons, Mother of God (blotter with naked woman on it)
Newspapers
One Way, Optical Illusions, Orange Barrels, Orange Cubes, Orange Haze, Orange Micro, Orange Sunshine, Orange Wedges, Outerlimits, Owsley, Owsley's Acid, Owsley's Blue Dot
Pane, Paper Acid, Peace, Peace Tablets, Peaks, Pellets, Phoenix, Pink Blotters (specific blotter), Pink Panther (specific blotter), Pink Robots (specific blotter), Pink Wedge (specific blotter), Pink Witches (specific blotter), Pizza, Potato, Pure Love, Purple Barrels, Purple Dome, Purple Dots, Purple Flats, Purple Haze, Purple Hearts, Purple Mikes, Purple Ozoline, Purple Wedge, Pyramids
Rainbow, Recycle, Red Lips, Royal Blues, Royal Temple Ball (hashish mixed with LSD then rolled into a ball), Russian sickles
Sacrament, Sandoz, Serenity, Sheet rocking, Shields, Sherman, Sketch, Smears, Smiley (specific blotter), Square Dancing Tickets, Squirrel, Stamp (paper blotter), Star, Strawberry, Strawberry Fields, Sugar, Sugar Cubes, Sugar Lumps, Sunshine, Superman
T (tabs), Tabs (blotter), Tail lights, Teddy bears, Ten Pack (1000 dosage units), Ticket, Trips, Twenty-five
Uncle Sid
Valley Dolls, Vodka acid, Volcano 5 (specific blotter)
Waffles (specific blotter), Wedding Bells, Wedges, White Dust, White Lightning, White Owsley's, Window Glass, Window Pane, Woodstock
Yellow(s), Yellow Dimples, Yellow Sunshine
Zen, Zig Zag man
25
The article claims that scientific study of LSD ceased in 1980. That is simply not true, and you can visit the current LSD research link that I added, as well as the searchable Bibliography. Additionally, the statement by the DEA in the same section is full of errors and misinformation. Firstly, scientific LSD research has not been extensive and widespread. Secondly, its use in psychotherapy has not been "largely debunked", but is in fact ongoing. The DEA then goes on to claim that LSD does not produce "aphrodisiac effects". What that has to do with the price of tea in China is confusing at best, although there is some evidence that in fact it does produce such effects. The DEA claims that LSD does not increase creativity; Perhaps the DEA meant "productivity", as creativity is a subjective term. The DEA claims that LSD "has no lasting positive effect in treating alcoholics or criminals" when studies clearly exist showing that it does, and when Leary did just that he was hauled off to jail as a warning to academia. And on it goes. The misinformation seems to have no end, but does a great job scaring people. This article needs a serious revision. -- Viriditas 11:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have a copy of Dr. Stanislav Grof's LSD Psychotherapy, and can summarize his (extremely important) contributions to psychiatric use of LSD. Dr. Humphry Osmond of course did a good deal of successful work with LSD (highly successful treatment of alcoholism), and even Dr. Timothy Leary did some promising work in treating alcoholism and reforming criminals through LSD therapy.
I'll draw up a new section on psychiatric use tonight. -- Thoric 14:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Kwertii: I think the term 'sensory hallucinations' is problemtaic when used to describe LSD effects. From hallucination: "The ability to discriminate between self-generated and external sources of information is considered to be an important metacognitive skill and one which may break down to cause hallucinatory experiences." During hallucinogenic experiences it is usually possible to clearly discriminate drug indiced "hallucinations" from reality and in cases where it is not I would attribute delusional effects to secondary states, e.g. panic. The reason might be that "hallucinations" caused by psychedelics are rather abstract, or, at higher dosages, resemble active daydreaming and fantasies. This is in contrast to the real hallucinations caused by anticholinergic hallucinogens. I would call psychedelic "hallucinations" illusions, even if they seem to appear without external stimuli.
25 µg is usually considered the threshold dose, i.e. a plus one on the shulgin rating scale: "The drug is quite certainly active. The chronology can be determined with some accuracy, but the nature of the drug's effects are not yet apparent."
What do you think about this description: "A typical dose of LSD is only 100 micrograms, a tiny amount of one-tenth the mass of a grain of sand." :-)
Cacycle 20:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've never heard of bob dylan ever commenting on his LSD experiences. and I've heard a lot of stuff that he's said. SECProto 01:42, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Document about Federico Fellini interviewed Fellini himself and several other famous actors, one of them mentioning that Fellini had tried lsd and reported that it had been like "going through doors". I wonder if Fellini should be added to the list? He is certainly notable. --Huopa 2004-12-07 13:05
I reverted Bletch's "NPOV" edit playing down the spread of misinformation that lead to the criminalization of LSD (i.e. chromosome damage, etc). While that paragraph could possible be worded a little better, Bletch's edits too drastically changed the meaning of the paragraph, and there is a huge pile of evidence to prove that purposeful misinformation was at play here. -- Thoric 00:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure D-lysergic acid should redirect to the LSD page, as they're chemically two different substances (the latter being the diethylamide of the former.)
- Murphyr
all he books i read say the same, that lsd and cannabis can cuase a psychosis. persons, who become psychotic, have had a latent psychosis, but expert do not know exatly, but most of them think so.
i have dozens of SERIOUS sources/links in german, i read a lot of GOOD books about drugs, all say the same, that people died after they had these hallucinations that they can fly.
i dont know, is someone here, who can speak and read in german? i can post many serious, german articles.
i think, one reason to use lsd is, to change your brain chemistry to have hallucinations, to see things, t hey are not there. so what???
it seems to me, that many people think, when someone says something against drugs which souns like the antipropaganda form the past, that this are all lies.
i'm sorry, i lost 2 friends, who are now psychotic. so idont need books, which say me what lsd can do to people, but read many of them.
i think its important, to figure out the truth, this is an enyclopedia.
i hope, my text is ok without to many mistakes, i'm from germany, so english is a foreingn language to me.
greets Linum 15:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A freshman at St John's College in Santa Fe, New Mexico jumped from his dorm roof on LSD during the 1998-99 or 1999-00 school year. I was there. It's not an urban legend. I don't know how to find documentation for that event, but I'm willing to look into it if it would help. Such things do happen, and the article might as well acknowledge that such events are very rare, although not unheard of. GTBacchus 18:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IN THEORY, yes, lsd can be psychologically addictive. but for all practical purposes, i'll have to see it before i believe it. if you know anyone right now itching for their next tab of lsd, then we can talk.... but until then, i simply do not believe it to be addictive.... but it is very, very bad for your mental health.
I just removed John Coltrane from this list. According to Lewis Porter's book, John Coltrane: His Life and Music, Coltrane doesn't appear to have commented on his LSD experiences, but if someone can find a source for his comments, please add it back in. -- Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well its widely believed that he did [4] [5]. That's not proof though. -- Benna 05:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand why it is meaningful or informative to include a list of people who have commented on their LSD experiences. What is the point? Most of the links do not include any information on when or where or under what circumstances they made the comments. What is the point?
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Just curious (really!), if LSD may be metabolized before the trip even wears off, is it possible to detect use of it afterwards? ( clem 19:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Why was my flashback changes reverted? The cited study is clearly flawed. Have you actually read it? It's main point is that because only 23% of people taking LSD experiences flashbacks post-LSD, it means that 77% does not experience it (wow what a deep insight), and thus LSD doesn't cause flashbacks?! Sounds like good reasoning to you? No, but this is what is says! Go read it if you don't believe me. It's explanations for the 23% are even more dubious. Also note that this isn't a study worthy of an encyclopedia. It doesn't even seem it has been published in any journal (if it has, please let me know so I can write them and discredit the study), it's nothing more than a master of arts thesis and no-one is vouching for its accuracy. And it's flaws are very obvious. There is very clear evidence that LSD causes flashbacks - several studies have confirmed it in normal populations, and the prevalence is about 15-30%. Psychiatrists around the world are treating people with LSD-induced HPPD. All this evidence can not be dismissed by one seriously flawed meta-study that hasn't been published! Perhaps your ignorance of the other studies are due to wishful thinking?
(Added by
195.249.187.204 (
talk ·
contribs) 15:33, 15 May 2005.)
Hey there, if you actually read the "No original research"-text it says that sources for Wikipedia-articles should be articles from reputable journals. The meta-study that is currently quoted is not published anywhere. It is just a master thesis and no-one is vouching for its soundness. Additionally, there are serious problems with the logic used by the article. So in my opinion, the contents of this article should - per the guidelines of Wikipedia - not affect the contents of this Wikipedia articles. Instead, the many other studies who found flashback effects (which, ironically, are used by the meta-article to argue that there is no flashback effects!) should be used, and they show that some porition of users experience flashback effects. I think it is your turn to justify the mention of the article because I have posted numerous reasons why it shouldn't be mentioned.
(added by
195.249.187.204 (
talk ·
contribs) 17:01, 15 May 2005)
I most certainly did read it — it was in many ways even worse, including a direct appeal to the reader which goes against Wikipedia (or any encyclopædia's) style, and at least one bad typo. Merely reinserting it without noticing (or caring about?) those problems isn't acceptable. Also, your edit summary that the new material is no worse than anything else here isn't justification for letting it in; it's grounds for improving what's already here. Let's go for consistency by raising the quality, not by dragging it all down to the lowest common denomoninator. Given that this apparently a featured article, we should be particularly careful about what's added. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the meta-study, and the comments that follow it, should be removed from the article. I think its possible that claims about flashbacks might be overblown, but this perticular meta-study is not peer-reviewed, and its logic is questionable. An encyclopedia should not be citing such material. -- Benna 18:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi again, I really hope I didn't give the impression I was just trying to wreck havoc or something. The reasons for my changes were a genuine concern about the accuracy of the article. I do realize now that not all I wrote in the article was proper for an encyclopedia, but on the other hand, I was outraged to see such a study referenced. Sorry about that. I was unable to find published articles critizing it (where should you look for such a thing when the study isn't published in a journal and with about 10 links on Google?) and in order to comply with NPOV I decided to leave the link to the study and instead give reasons why the study was flawed. Now I realize that that the proper thing to do would be to simply remove the link and all mention of the study, because I doubt this study would fall under Wikipedia's guidelines as it hasn't been published and it certainly can't subsume published studies. I'm happy to see that other people agree that the study is flawed. I think most people would come to this conclusion if they read the article objectively. As the current dispute appears to be about the way I edited the article rather than the actual content, I will now remove the reference and replace it with references discussing the flashback effects. And to Mel Etitis: Thanks for your advice about how to submit articles to Wikipedia. However, I don't understand why you reverted the 2nd submission if your only concern was the style and a (bad) typo, you could at least have asked me to correct it (or have corrected it yourself) rather than reverting the article. But I think that the changes I'm now going to carry out will give a version we can all agree is consistent with the Wikipedia-guidelines. Benna: I too think the claims about flashbacks may be somewhat overblown but I think there can be little doubt that it does occur and is causally related to use of LSD. 195.249.187.204 19:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The statistic that indicates that "studies in the 1950s" had a 50% rate of "curing" alcoholism needs citations for support--if it's to remain in this article--for several reasons: 1) Any time a claim is made regarding the statistical outcome of a scientific venture, the publication on which this claim is based must be referenced in order allow for others to interpret, judge and choose whether to accept or dispute the claim. And 2) Pertinent alcohol-related literature suggests that alcoholism is an "incurable" disorder. Rather, alcoholics who abstain for any length of time (including from the initiation of abstemious behavior to death) are said to be continually "in recovery." This statement is made generally because the psychological and interpersonal repercussions attributable to alcohol use/abuse with which the alcoholic must cope and endure persist throughout the lifespan--i.e., alcohol-related onset of depression, anxiety, fear of intimacy peri-recovery, etc.
Reference:
Kadden, et. al (1995). Preface. In M. E. Mattison (Ed.) National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism project MATCH monograph series: A clinical research guide for therapists treating individuals with alcohol abuse and dependence (pp. vii-xi). Rockville: National Institutes of Health
ive heard that the founder of alcoholics anonymous had a break with his sobriety by trying lsd because it was believed to cure alcoholism... is this accurate?
The articles cites a link to an interview by Bill Gates supposedly containing a ref to his LSD use, but there is no such mention in the interview. Is this claim factual? — 67.127.220.113
What about moving the quote section to wikiquote and add a link to that? -- Pål Drange
The quote by 'SUBTREX' looks like a vandal's handiwork.
Before creating an account, I did a minuscule edit. Come on - we all know flashbacks can occur for years, and in the article it only said "days or months". — Twisturbed Tachyon 02:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I assume the people who's interested enough in the subject to scrutinize this discussion page are aware of the duration of after-effects. You, for one, certainly knew it - yeah? Kind regards, ( Twisturbed Tachyon 14:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC))
Because I assume that the people participating in this discussion are aware of the duration of long term effects, it doesen't automatically mean I assume they've had personal experience with the substance (though they might very well have so). I simply consider it to be common knowledge within this field that flashbacks can occur for years, regardless of whether the people who participate in the discussion has tripped on acid themselves or not, you dig? Kind regards, -- Twisturbed Tachyon 03:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Flashbacks can occur for years, as they are essentially a form of PTSD. It should be emphasized that flashbacks are exceedingly rare, and there is no real evidence as of yet that LSD "flashbacks" are different from memory flashbacks caused by any other traumatic event. -- Thoric 16:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The following sentence:
has been repeatedly changed into to opposite:
From what I remember there is some "non-linearity" or "saturation" of the dose-response curve so that taking increasing doses does not result in a real further intensification from a certain point on. However, a quick internet-search did not provide a source for that. Until somebody can find a reference to clear this up I will take that sentence out of the article. Cacycle 21:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
i have no clue about wikipedia really so i'd rather not change anything in the article but as i was researching for a film related paper, i was wondering why there are no relations of the wikipedia article on LSD to films, to name the ones that come to my mind immediately:
- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (USA, 1998) D: Terry Gilliam - Das Netz (Germany, 2004) D: Lutz Dammbeck - Altered States (USA, 1980) D: Ken Russell
http://researchpubs.com/books/isfexc2.shtml
bye
Seriosly, is anyone even experienced? Reads like a teenager with aspirations of becoming a psychiatrist wrote this whilst on bible camp, in crayon, then dictated it to their besty who punched it in with their thumbs through autocorrect. No wonder research is fifty years behind where it could be. Benjaminzedrine ( talk) 16:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
From history: Cobberlicious talk contribs 174,020 bytes −95 Removed a nonsensical, unreferenced statement: "Frequent use rapidly builds tolerance, requiring exponentially larger doses to feel an effect." -- rapid LSD tolerance is hardly "nonsensical", perhaps this needs to have a reference here, or be reworded, but shouldn't be removed. This is a distinct characteristic of LSD and similar psychedelics. Taking the exact same dose the very next day will only produce half the effect, and the dose basically needs to be doubled. On the third day it would need to be doubled again, and by the fourth day, often doubling the dose once again doesn't produce the same effects, and people become uneasy taking very high doses.
https://mind-foundation.org/tolerance-to-lsd/ Thoric ( talk) 17:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I cant find an article on blotter paper. Should one be made if not already?
This entry has won the West Dakota Prize for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/effects.htm
A very rare experience. Total loss of visual connection with reality. The senses cease to function in the normal way. Total loss of self. Transcendental experiences of cosmic unity Merging with space, other objects, or the universe. Out of body experience. Ecstasy. "Entity contact". The loss of reality becomes so severe that it defies explanation. Pure white light. Difficult to put into words.
That sounds like Ketamine. Anyone have some more info on this? Like how high of a dose would be needed to produce an out of body experience with LSD or how often it happens? -- Arm
To commentors and editors: please bear in mind that the proper abbreviation for microgram is "mcg" or "μg". The abbreviation, "mg," means milligram. There is quite a difference, as 1 mg = 1000 μg. This may seem a picky detail, but for the sake of precision it should be observed.
Why is "hallucinogenic" in quotation marks throughout the article? Is there really any question that LSD induces hallucinations?
-kwertii
I Think LSD is the best creation in the world. I have been using for 25 years now and it has improved my general well-being. Painting, creativeness and thought patterns are improved imensely. I take it in Drop form and about 300mg each time. I understand why it is illegal. Parties and acid do not improve yourself but lsd and mental thoughts make you more intelliget. I can see different situations from all different angles when confronted with situations..So..yes i believe it can be benificial to some people only
160% purity ? Are you sure it's per 50ug not per 100ug ?
Here is the original quote from the DEA ( http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/lsd/lsd-4.htm):
That just describes how much drug is in each "hit" and 50 mg is some kind of average dose. Not anything about purity of drug as delivered. I presume the mean 50 mg of pure (100%) LSD per each hit. ---rmhermen
Dr. Bob, can you send the image to jasonr@bomis.com? Or just ask Jason for the URL of that upload page (I don't have it myself)?
I am idly wondering how many people with doctorates are working on Wikipedia. If it's a very large number, that could be a very good PR statistic. (This isn't to say that people without Ph.D.'s are not welcome, of course!) -- LMS
I've added reference to the rabbit hyperthermia model which is one of the common sources of "numbers" concerning relative potencies. Kaet (aka Dr. Kaet, :)).
Article read "(Despite rulings that the First Amendment protects religions even if they do not make sense, courts today tend to reject such defenses in "drug" cases.)" -- not only is that very U.S.-centric, it's not NPOV, and completely fails to understand the U.S. Supreme Court's logic. -- SJK
LSD (Libra, Solidi, Denarii) is also the common abbreviation for the British money system prior to 1971. There is obviously potential for ambiguity here when we get round to doing an article on British Coinage. -- Derek Ross
SJK, if you mean the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that the state does not need to show compelling interest to restrict the free exercise of religion provided it doesn't aim the law at particular religions, then I admit I don't understand their logic. Not only does it contradict precedent, but Scalia himself ruled that New Jersey couldn't restrict the Boy Scouts' constitutional rights even with a law that applied to everyone. Would you mind explaining it? -- Dan
I wasn't referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the compelling state interest test. Even before that, the U.S. Supreme Court had always rejected the use of illegal drugs for religious purposes, with the exception of the use of peyote by the Native American Church. Most countries with constitutional protection of freedom of religion prohibit use of illegal drugs even for religious purposes, and their courts don't consider that a violation of freedom of religion. Constitutional protections of freedom of religion are intended primarily to protect what are traditionally considered to be religious practices, and which can be carried out with little harm to others: e.g. prayer, meditation, singing, giving sermons, printing and distributing literature, etc. They are not intended to give religions a carte blanche exclusion from the law. Otherwise we'd have to allow the practice of such religious activities as human sacrifice.
I'm not saying I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court on this -- I don't support drug prohibition. But "(Despite rulings that the First Amendment protects religions even if they do not make sense, courts today tend to reject such defenses in "drug" cases.)" is biased, and ignores the Court's logic. -- SJK
Using what quantitative test of potency?
Perhaps people familiar with writing about organic chemistry could answer my small point about language. As I understand the proper name for the substance is "d-lysergic acid ..." with a lowere case "d". Would it not be the case that this would even override the use of a capital "D" even at the beginning of a sentence. Eclecticology 02:46 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)
Portions of the manufacture section appear to be cribbed directly from the DEA website. Is that a copyright issue, is it public domain, and since the DEA is not a neutral party, is the info (particularly w/r/t synthesis from morning glory seeds) corroborated from other sources.
I'm inclined to believe the MK-ULTRA CIA experimentation story, but since it smacks of conspiracy theory, can someone mention the source of this info to try and keep a NPOV? "According to..." or "There are some who believe that...", etc. mjb 04:23 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
The MKULTRA information is all from declassified CIA documents released in the early 1990's. The experimentation at Edgewood US Army base and the public experiments in NYC are all backed up by this declassified documentation.
OK, I'm no expert in this area, but ergotamine tartrate is almost certainly not the isolation product from ergot, ergotamine is. However, the free lysergic acid amides, such as ergotamine or LSD, are prone to decomposition when exposed to light, heat or air, and the tartrate salts are less prone to that decomposition. The 8th edition of the Merck Index doesn't speak of the isolation of ergotamine tartrate from ergot, rather, it gives a reference with ergotamine, that being Stoll, Helvetica Chemica Acta 28, 1283 (1945). The Wikipedia probably needs an article on ergotamine itself, it's given to mothers during delivery and otherwise has medicinal uses. My recollection is also that ergotamines can be isolated from Hawaiian woodrose seeds and morning glory seeds, though not in the quantity you can get from the ergot fungus.
Finally, comments to the effect that the synthesis of LSD is somehow difficult and extreme needs to be moderated by the observation that a student of chemistry who has completed a year of organic chemistry and lab at a US university is fully capable of this synthesis (if not experienced in it). All you're making is an acid amide, for cryin' out loud. Dwmyers 01:01, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The article quotes "LSD users do, however, exhibit tolerance; LSD's effects diminish with frequent, repeated use, especially over short periods of time."
Under the headline Flashbacks, there are some common thories of causes of LSD flashbacks mentioned. However, the most common explanation I know is missing. I first heard it from Robert Anton Wilson and immediately felt it to be a very good and fitting explanation:
The mind is capable of many different "states". We have sober wakefulness, deep sleep, REM sleep, alertness, anger, etc. Some of theses possible states are harder to reach than other (for instance egoloss) but all are more or less reachable by conventional yogic practice (without drugs). Now, a flashback can best be considered as nothing but a change in mental state. A person with LSD experience have a much higher chance of reaching one of the more esoteric states since that person has already "been there". A spontaneous change to such a mental state might be very frightening to someone not very experienced with consciousness change/exploration.
Maybe I could get details of where (in what book/lecture) Wilson gives his analysis on the subject.
I've taken LSD myself, but I don't think that it enhances "thinking" or creativity. It creates certain visual patterns which are quite well depicted in psychedelic art. However the patterns are always the same and as such not very creative. It's main features are colorfullness, repetition and fractal geometry. That's it. And "thinking" is in no way enhanced under LSD, on the contrary, under acute influence of LSD your judgement and intelligence is severely RESTRAINED.
To the question of hallocinations: Yes, LSD only distorts external input. You'll see geometrical patterns on objects, imaginary movements of their shape and size, but the object itself is always real and never completly imaginary. The same for audio input, a person talking far away from you can appear as if he is close to you whispering into your ear, and the sound can be severely distorted - however the sentence you'll hear is always real and never imaginary and as such no real hallocination.
What about the method of action? Lacking the data to immediately contribute, the best I can do is download my recollection that LSD is a serotonin agonist. Other hallucinogens agonize other receptors - mescalline might be a noradrenaline agonist, but it certainly doesn't work like methamphetamine or cocaine.
Method of action is an important consideration with any drug, and lets us study drug policies in an informed context.
Bird 22:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Re: Steve Wozniak being removed from "notables". Indeed, he claims on his site that he never used LSD. So a user removed him, citing this. OK. However, it's interesting to note that he told TIME Magazine (approx. 8-10 years ago) that the concept of the first Apple PC came to him during an LSD trip. Given Jobs' fairly extensive LSD use at the time, it's quite hard to believe that Wozniak just made that up. But I suppose we take him at his word? (His most recent word, that is.) Might it be appropriate to include a quote from the article? Or should we just leave him out? It certainly, in this writer's opinion, is an informative tidbit in re: the impact psychedelics had on the high-tech revolution.
-- 207.31.248.155 15:39, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I think the "notables" section is interesting (as opposed to for example the possibly endless list of cocaine notables), but isn't it growing rather large? Maybe it should be moved to a page of it's own?
hey, can someone provide a list of common/slang names for LSD? i think that would be really helpful. JoeSmack (talk) 18:41, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
A, acid
barrels, Bart Simpson (specific blotter), Battery acid, Beast, Beavis & Butthead (specific blotter), Bells, Big D, Bird head, Black acid (lsd or lsd/pcp combo), Black Star, Black Sunshine, Black tabs, Blackbird (specific blotter), Blaze, Blotter, Blotter acid, Blotter cube, Blue acid, Blue Barrels, Blue Chairs, Blue Cheers, Blue Fly (LSD from NYC), Blue Heaven(s), Blue Microdot, Blue Mist, Blue Moons, Blue Star (specific blotter), Blue Vials, Book (100 dosage units), Brown Bombers, Brown Dots
California Sunshine, Candy Flip (LSD + MDMA combo), Candy Flipping on a String (LSD, MDMA and Cocaine combi), Cap, Caps, Casper the ghost, Caviar, Cheap basing, Cheers, Chief, Chinese dragons, Chocolate chips, Church (specific blotter), Cid, Class, Coffee, Colors, Conductor, Contact Lens, Crackers, Crystal tea, Cube (sugarcube), Cupcakes, D, Deeda, Dental Floss, Diablo (specific blotter), Dinosaurs (specific blotter), Domes (a form of lsd (?)), Doses, Dots (microdots), Double Dome, Double Dreads (LSD + Amphetamine combo), Dragon (specific blotter)
El Cid, Electric Kool Aid, Ellis Day, Elvis, Felix the Cat, Fields, Flash, Flashers (LSD that is very hallucinogenic (?)), Flat Blues, Flats, Flying Triangle (specific blotter), Frisco Special/Frisco Speedball (Cocaine, Heroin and LSD combo), Frogs, Fry Gel caps (mistakenly used in place of "geltab"), Geltab (LSD form), Ghost, Golden dragon, Golf balls, Goofys, Grape parfait, Green Double domes, Green Single domes, Green Wedge, Grey Shields (specific blotter)
Hats, Hawaiian Sunshine, Hawk, Haze, Headlights, Heaven, Heavenly, Hits (dosage unit)
Illusions, Infinity (LSD that lasts for a long period of time), Instant Zen
Jesus Christ acid (potent)
Kaleidoscope (specific blotter)
L, LAD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide), Laogor, Lason daga, Lason sa daga, LBJ, Leary's, Lens, Lids, Lime acid, Live Spit and Die, Logor, Loony toons, LSD-25, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Mellow yellow, Microdot(s) (LSD form), Mighty Quinn, Mind Blow, Mind Detergent, Mist, Moons, Mother of God (blotter with naked woman on it)
Newspapers
One Way, Optical Illusions, Orange Barrels, Orange Cubes, Orange Haze, Orange Micro, Orange Sunshine, Orange Wedges, Outerlimits, Owsley, Owsley's Acid, Owsley's Blue Dot
Pane, Paper Acid, Peace, Peace Tablets, Peaks, Pellets, Phoenix, Pink Blotters (specific blotter), Pink Panther (specific blotter), Pink Robots (specific blotter), Pink Wedge (specific blotter), Pink Witches (specific blotter), Pizza, Potato, Pure Love, Purple Barrels, Purple Dome, Purple Dots, Purple Flats, Purple Haze, Purple Hearts, Purple Mikes, Purple Ozoline, Purple Wedge, Pyramids
Rainbow, Recycle, Red Lips, Royal Blues, Royal Temple Ball (hashish mixed with LSD then rolled into a ball), Russian sickles
Sacrament, Sandoz, Serenity, Sheet rocking, Shields, Sherman, Sketch, Smears, Smiley (specific blotter), Square Dancing Tickets, Squirrel, Stamp (paper blotter), Star, Strawberry, Strawberry Fields, Sugar, Sugar Cubes, Sugar Lumps, Sunshine, Superman
T (tabs), Tabs (blotter), Tail lights, Teddy bears, Ten Pack (1000 dosage units), Ticket, Trips, Twenty-five
Uncle Sid
Valley Dolls, Vodka acid, Volcano 5 (specific blotter)
Waffles (specific blotter), Wedding Bells, Wedges, White Dust, White Lightning, White Owsley's, Window Glass, Window Pane, Woodstock
Yellow(s), Yellow Dimples, Yellow Sunshine
Zen, Zig Zag man
25
The article claims that scientific study of LSD ceased in 1980. That is simply not true, and you can visit the current LSD research link that I added, as well as the searchable Bibliography. Additionally, the statement by the DEA in the same section is full of errors and misinformation. Firstly, scientific LSD research has not been extensive and widespread. Secondly, its use in psychotherapy has not been "largely debunked", but is in fact ongoing. The DEA then goes on to claim that LSD does not produce "aphrodisiac effects". What that has to do with the price of tea in China is confusing at best, although there is some evidence that in fact it does produce such effects. The DEA claims that LSD does not increase creativity; Perhaps the DEA meant "productivity", as creativity is a subjective term. The DEA claims that LSD "has no lasting positive effect in treating alcoholics or criminals" when studies clearly exist showing that it does, and when Leary did just that he was hauled off to jail as a warning to academia. And on it goes. The misinformation seems to have no end, but does a great job scaring people. This article needs a serious revision. -- Viriditas 11:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have a copy of Dr. Stanislav Grof's LSD Psychotherapy, and can summarize his (extremely important) contributions to psychiatric use of LSD. Dr. Humphry Osmond of course did a good deal of successful work with LSD (highly successful treatment of alcoholism), and even Dr. Timothy Leary did some promising work in treating alcoholism and reforming criminals through LSD therapy.
I'll draw up a new section on psychiatric use tonight. -- Thoric 14:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Kwertii: I think the term 'sensory hallucinations' is problemtaic when used to describe LSD effects. From hallucination: "The ability to discriminate between self-generated and external sources of information is considered to be an important metacognitive skill and one which may break down to cause hallucinatory experiences." During hallucinogenic experiences it is usually possible to clearly discriminate drug indiced "hallucinations" from reality and in cases where it is not I would attribute delusional effects to secondary states, e.g. panic. The reason might be that "hallucinations" caused by psychedelics are rather abstract, or, at higher dosages, resemble active daydreaming and fantasies. This is in contrast to the real hallucinations caused by anticholinergic hallucinogens. I would call psychedelic "hallucinations" illusions, even if they seem to appear without external stimuli.
25 µg is usually considered the threshold dose, i.e. a plus one on the shulgin rating scale: "The drug is quite certainly active. The chronology can be determined with some accuracy, but the nature of the drug's effects are not yet apparent."
What do you think about this description: "A typical dose of LSD is only 100 micrograms, a tiny amount of one-tenth the mass of a grain of sand." :-)
Cacycle 20:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've never heard of bob dylan ever commenting on his LSD experiences. and I've heard a lot of stuff that he's said. SECProto 01:42, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Document about Federico Fellini interviewed Fellini himself and several other famous actors, one of them mentioning that Fellini had tried lsd and reported that it had been like "going through doors". I wonder if Fellini should be added to the list? He is certainly notable. --Huopa 2004-12-07 13:05
I reverted Bletch's "NPOV" edit playing down the spread of misinformation that lead to the criminalization of LSD (i.e. chromosome damage, etc). While that paragraph could possible be worded a little better, Bletch's edits too drastically changed the meaning of the paragraph, and there is a huge pile of evidence to prove that purposeful misinformation was at play here. -- Thoric 00:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure D-lysergic acid should redirect to the LSD page, as they're chemically two different substances (the latter being the diethylamide of the former.)
- Murphyr
all he books i read say the same, that lsd and cannabis can cuase a psychosis. persons, who become psychotic, have had a latent psychosis, but expert do not know exatly, but most of them think so.
i have dozens of SERIOUS sources/links in german, i read a lot of GOOD books about drugs, all say the same, that people died after they had these hallucinations that they can fly.
i dont know, is someone here, who can speak and read in german? i can post many serious, german articles.
i think, one reason to use lsd is, to change your brain chemistry to have hallucinations, to see things, t hey are not there. so what???
it seems to me, that many people think, when someone says something against drugs which souns like the antipropaganda form the past, that this are all lies.
i'm sorry, i lost 2 friends, who are now psychotic. so idont need books, which say me what lsd can do to people, but read many of them.
i think its important, to figure out the truth, this is an enyclopedia.
i hope, my text is ok without to many mistakes, i'm from germany, so english is a foreingn language to me.
greets Linum 15:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A freshman at St John's College in Santa Fe, New Mexico jumped from his dorm roof on LSD during the 1998-99 or 1999-00 school year. I was there. It's not an urban legend. I don't know how to find documentation for that event, but I'm willing to look into it if it would help. Such things do happen, and the article might as well acknowledge that such events are very rare, although not unheard of. GTBacchus 18:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IN THEORY, yes, lsd can be psychologically addictive. but for all practical purposes, i'll have to see it before i believe it. if you know anyone right now itching for their next tab of lsd, then we can talk.... but until then, i simply do not believe it to be addictive.... but it is very, very bad for your mental health.
I just removed John Coltrane from this list. According to Lewis Porter's book, John Coltrane: His Life and Music, Coltrane doesn't appear to have commented on his LSD experiences, but if someone can find a source for his comments, please add it back in. -- Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well its widely believed that he did [4] [5]. That's not proof though. -- Benna 05:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand why it is meaningful or informative to include a list of people who have commented on their LSD experiences. What is the point? Most of the links do not include any information on when or where or under what circumstances they made the comments. What is the point?
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Just curious (really!), if LSD may be metabolized before the trip even wears off, is it possible to detect use of it afterwards? ( clem 19:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Why was my flashback changes reverted? The cited study is clearly flawed. Have you actually read it? It's main point is that because only 23% of people taking LSD experiences flashbacks post-LSD, it means that 77% does not experience it (wow what a deep insight), and thus LSD doesn't cause flashbacks?! Sounds like good reasoning to you? No, but this is what is says! Go read it if you don't believe me. It's explanations for the 23% are even more dubious. Also note that this isn't a study worthy of an encyclopedia. It doesn't even seem it has been published in any journal (if it has, please let me know so I can write them and discredit the study), it's nothing more than a master of arts thesis and no-one is vouching for its accuracy. And it's flaws are very obvious. There is very clear evidence that LSD causes flashbacks - several studies have confirmed it in normal populations, and the prevalence is about 15-30%. Psychiatrists around the world are treating people with LSD-induced HPPD. All this evidence can not be dismissed by one seriously flawed meta-study that hasn't been published! Perhaps your ignorance of the other studies are due to wishful thinking?
(Added by
195.249.187.204 (
talk ·
contribs) 15:33, 15 May 2005.)
Hey there, if you actually read the "No original research"-text it says that sources for Wikipedia-articles should be articles from reputable journals. The meta-study that is currently quoted is not published anywhere. It is just a master thesis and no-one is vouching for its soundness. Additionally, there are serious problems with the logic used by the article. So in my opinion, the contents of this article should - per the guidelines of Wikipedia - not affect the contents of this Wikipedia articles. Instead, the many other studies who found flashback effects (which, ironically, are used by the meta-article to argue that there is no flashback effects!) should be used, and they show that some porition of users experience flashback effects. I think it is your turn to justify the mention of the article because I have posted numerous reasons why it shouldn't be mentioned.
(added by
195.249.187.204 (
talk ·
contribs) 17:01, 15 May 2005)
I most certainly did read it — it was in many ways even worse, including a direct appeal to the reader which goes against Wikipedia (or any encyclopædia's) style, and at least one bad typo. Merely reinserting it without noticing (or caring about?) those problems isn't acceptable. Also, your edit summary that the new material is no worse than anything else here isn't justification for letting it in; it's grounds for improving what's already here. Let's go for consistency by raising the quality, not by dragging it all down to the lowest common denomoninator. Given that this apparently a featured article, we should be particularly careful about what's added. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the meta-study, and the comments that follow it, should be removed from the article. I think its possible that claims about flashbacks might be overblown, but this perticular meta-study is not peer-reviewed, and its logic is questionable. An encyclopedia should not be citing such material. -- Benna 18:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi again, I really hope I didn't give the impression I was just trying to wreck havoc or something. The reasons for my changes were a genuine concern about the accuracy of the article. I do realize now that not all I wrote in the article was proper for an encyclopedia, but on the other hand, I was outraged to see such a study referenced. Sorry about that. I was unable to find published articles critizing it (where should you look for such a thing when the study isn't published in a journal and with about 10 links on Google?) and in order to comply with NPOV I decided to leave the link to the study and instead give reasons why the study was flawed. Now I realize that that the proper thing to do would be to simply remove the link and all mention of the study, because I doubt this study would fall under Wikipedia's guidelines as it hasn't been published and it certainly can't subsume published studies. I'm happy to see that other people agree that the study is flawed. I think most people would come to this conclusion if they read the article objectively. As the current dispute appears to be about the way I edited the article rather than the actual content, I will now remove the reference and replace it with references discussing the flashback effects. And to Mel Etitis: Thanks for your advice about how to submit articles to Wikipedia. However, I don't understand why you reverted the 2nd submission if your only concern was the style and a (bad) typo, you could at least have asked me to correct it (or have corrected it yourself) rather than reverting the article. But I think that the changes I'm now going to carry out will give a version we can all agree is consistent with the Wikipedia-guidelines. Benna: I too think the claims about flashbacks may be somewhat overblown but I think there can be little doubt that it does occur and is causally related to use of LSD. 195.249.187.204 19:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The statistic that indicates that "studies in the 1950s" had a 50% rate of "curing" alcoholism needs citations for support--if it's to remain in this article--for several reasons: 1) Any time a claim is made regarding the statistical outcome of a scientific venture, the publication on which this claim is based must be referenced in order allow for others to interpret, judge and choose whether to accept or dispute the claim. And 2) Pertinent alcohol-related literature suggests that alcoholism is an "incurable" disorder. Rather, alcoholics who abstain for any length of time (including from the initiation of abstemious behavior to death) are said to be continually "in recovery." This statement is made generally because the psychological and interpersonal repercussions attributable to alcohol use/abuse with which the alcoholic must cope and endure persist throughout the lifespan--i.e., alcohol-related onset of depression, anxiety, fear of intimacy peri-recovery, etc.
Reference:
Kadden, et. al (1995). Preface. In M. E. Mattison (Ed.) National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism project MATCH monograph series: A clinical research guide for therapists treating individuals with alcohol abuse and dependence (pp. vii-xi). Rockville: National Institutes of Health
ive heard that the founder of alcoholics anonymous had a break with his sobriety by trying lsd because it was believed to cure alcoholism... is this accurate?
The articles cites a link to an interview by Bill Gates supposedly containing a ref to his LSD use, but there is no such mention in the interview. Is this claim factual? — 67.127.220.113
What about moving the quote section to wikiquote and add a link to that? -- Pål Drange
The quote by 'SUBTREX' looks like a vandal's handiwork.
Before creating an account, I did a minuscule edit. Come on - we all know flashbacks can occur for years, and in the article it only said "days or months". — Twisturbed Tachyon 02:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I assume the people who's interested enough in the subject to scrutinize this discussion page are aware of the duration of after-effects. You, for one, certainly knew it - yeah? Kind regards, ( Twisturbed Tachyon 14:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC))
Because I assume that the people participating in this discussion are aware of the duration of long term effects, it doesen't automatically mean I assume they've had personal experience with the substance (though they might very well have so). I simply consider it to be common knowledge within this field that flashbacks can occur for years, regardless of whether the people who participate in the discussion has tripped on acid themselves or not, you dig? Kind regards, -- Twisturbed Tachyon 03:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Flashbacks can occur for years, as they are essentially a form of PTSD. It should be emphasized that flashbacks are exceedingly rare, and there is no real evidence as of yet that LSD "flashbacks" are different from memory flashbacks caused by any other traumatic event. -- Thoric 16:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The following sentence:
has been repeatedly changed into to opposite:
From what I remember there is some "non-linearity" or "saturation" of the dose-response curve so that taking increasing doses does not result in a real further intensification from a certain point on. However, a quick internet-search did not provide a source for that. Until somebody can find a reference to clear this up I will take that sentence out of the article. Cacycle 21:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
i have no clue about wikipedia really so i'd rather not change anything in the article but as i was researching for a film related paper, i was wondering why there are no relations of the wikipedia article on LSD to films, to name the ones that come to my mind immediately:
- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (USA, 1998) D: Terry Gilliam - Das Netz (Germany, 2004) D: Lutz Dammbeck - Altered States (USA, 1980) D: Ken Russell
http://researchpubs.com/books/isfexc2.shtml
bye
Seriosly, is anyone even experienced? Reads like a teenager with aspirations of becoming a psychiatrist wrote this whilst on bible camp, in crayon, then dictated it to their besty who punched it in with their thumbs through autocorrect. No wonder research is fifty years behind where it could be. Benjaminzedrine ( talk) 16:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
From history: Cobberlicious talk contribs 174,020 bytes −95 Removed a nonsensical, unreferenced statement: "Frequent use rapidly builds tolerance, requiring exponentially larger doses to feel an effect." -- rapid LSD tolerance is hardly "nonsensical", perhaps this needs to have a reference here, or be reworded, but shouldn't be removed. This is a distinct characteristic of LSD and similar psychedelics. Taking the exact same dose the very next day will only produce half the effect, and the dose basically needs to be doubled. On the third day it would need to be doubled again, and by the fourth day, often doubling the dose once again doesn't produce the same effects, and people become uneasy taking very high doses.
https://mind-foundation.org/tolerance-to-lsd/ Thoric ( talk) 17:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)