Talk:LSD/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

LSD a "soft" drug???

Does the article actually, really, try to imply that LSD is a "soft" drug? It compares LSD to "harder" drugs such as "alcohol, cocaine and heroin". First, let me just say, that of course, when alcohol is used in excess it is harmful...but to place it in the same category as cocaine and heroine!!! Further, to imply that alcohol is a "harder" drug than LSD is simply ludicrous. What definition of "hard" are we talking about here? The article further does not just suggest but STATES, with supposed authority, that unlike "alcohol, cocaine and heroin", LSD is NOT an escape from reality. What trip were the writers of this article on when they suggest that alcohol is more of an escape from reality than LSD? Please correct me if I'm wrong, so that next time I consider having a glass of wine with dinner with my girlfriend, I'll suggest we do something "softer" and drop acid instead...acid in moderation of course. Loomis51 22:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

See the article hard and soft drugs about the very problematic concept of "hard" and "soft" drugs. If you define hard drugs as addictive drugs then alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, and heroin would be hard drugs but LSD would not. If you define hard drugs as drugs bad for your health then alcohol and tobacco would be hard drugs, LSD, heroin, and cocaine would not. If you define hard drugs as prohibited drugs, then LSD would be a hard drug together with Cannabis which makes not much sense either. Better forget the hard and soft drugs classification, it has no scientific value but instead is a purely political concept. Cacycle 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

LSD would not be harmful for my mental health? Are you sure? Loomis51 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the benefits of LSD, though they may exist, I'm unconvinced that it would be a good idea to recommend use of LSD to the uninitiated. Its potential for serious psychological and even psychiatric long term trauma is far too great. I personally know of numerous incidences of the harm LSD can cause. With regard to a drug's addictive qualities, I believe a serious distinction should be introduced: Addiction can be "physical" and/or "psychological". It's true that nicotine is the most addictive drug that I've heard of. Its physically addictive. A short period after using nicotine, the BODY craves another hit. This craving can last for weeks. Alcohol, on the other hand is only physically addictive in the very short term. After a period of heavy drinking, the body becomes accustomed to the alcohol, and a short period after the supply is cut off, physical withdrawal ensues (i.e. the hangover). However, the full effects of the hangover are almost invariably gone after at the very most one day. After this, the body is no longer "addicted" to alcohol. The "psychological" addictiveness of alcohol, on the other hand, is significant. That is perhaps why alcohol weighed in above heroin, an extremely addictive substance. Alcohol is certainly not more "physically" addictive than heroin.

Perhaps the problem is that the term "addiction" is used as a catch-all for a variety of conditions. For example, nicotine addiction works entirely different from Alcoholism. Anybody can become a nicotine addict. It's an addiction in the purest sense of the term. With sufficient regularity of use the body becomes dependent on the drug. Anyone and EVERYONE who ingests nicotine on a regular basis becomes addicted. Alcoholism works entirely differently. Unlike nicotine addiction, alcoholism is congenital in nature. It has little to do with regularity of use and much to do with one's genetic predisposition. This explains the roughly billions of people who are able to drink casually, without developing alcoholism. For example, after a year of sobriety, an alcoholic still craves alcohol. After 20 years of sobriety, the recovering alcoholic still craves alcohol. If you don't believe me, ask your local chapter of AA. On the other hand, after a year without a cigarette, most ex-smokers would tell you that they no longer have any interest in smoking. After 20 years, the mere thought of smoking would probably never cross their mind. Alcoholism is a lifetime disease. Nicotine addiction is (or can be, if the smoker quits) temporary. Loomis51 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

AA pushes propaganda of their own agenda. Of course they want to claim that all alcoholics remain alcoholics for life, and there is no such thing as a "cured" alcoholic -- this is because they don't want to lose membership, and they also use this to try to cover up their terrible sobriety rates (less than 5%). They tell alcoholics that they will never be normal. This is a lie. Alcoholics can be cured through proper therapy, not through some hodge-podge of a cult. As for ex-smokers, there are plenty who have "quit" just as many times as an alcoholic has "quit", and who get cravings whenever they are around another smoker. This is exactly why the anti-smoking movement has gained so much momentum -- because ex-smokers know that if they are around smokers, it will weaken their resolve. --Thoric 01:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have some strong feelings about AA, I'm not so sure I would call it a cult. Nevertheless, to be honest, I agree that their approach is rather gloomy. I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong and that alcoholism can be cured. But you only mention "through proper therapy". What is this therapy you're speaking of? (I'd sincerely like to know, I'm not just asking the question to goad you into another rebuttle. As I've always maintained, this debate is about learning, not winning or losing) Also, just wondering, why would a non-profit group care if its membership declined? They're obviously not in it for the money. What other motivation would they have? And finally, as an ex-smoker (and you may regard this as "anectodotal" as you wish), I have absolutely no interest in having a cigarette, no matter whose company I'm in (i.e. other smokers). But, as I said, you may dissmiss my experience as "anecdotal".Loomis51 22:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I do have strong feelings about AA as I've listened to their propaganda and found it offensive -- and I don't even have more than ten drinks per year (all being social, and most being around the holiday Christmas / New Years season). There is a growing moderation movement, and a number of psychologists strongly support the concept that alcoholism is curable, and that abstination is simply avoidance, not a cure. In fact, most AA alcoholics switch their alcohol addiction to caffeine and nicotine (among other things, such as an overly strong interest in religion). By therapy, I mean psychotherapy. Alcohol is an escapist drug -- something taken to block out mental anguish and depression. The reasons for drinking need to be discovered and resolved. As for smoking, it is mostly due to the physical addiction -- that is staving off withdrawal symptoms. Of course nicotine provides some benefits as a mild stimulant, and actually does improve cognative ability, and even helps to prevent degenerative brain diseases... unfortunately it may cause cancer. I am also an ex-smoker, and have no desire to smoke. I have never been addicted though. I've never been more than a social smoker, but I have been pretty much cigarette free for the past five years (I've had a small cigar on occasion -- say once per year). I can be around smokers without feeling the desire to smoke, and also without being disgusted by their smoking. --Thoric 00:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thoric, I think our differences in opinion are really more semantic than real. You insist on defining hard and soft drugs (contrary to Wikipedia) by their addictive qualities alone. Fair enough. I agree that LSD is not addictive and therefore, according to your definition, it's not a "hard drug". Fair enough. But please be aware that some (if not most...after all Wikipedia's definition is at odds with yours) define hard and soft drugs differently. You have at various times accused me of using logical fallacies, of using my own definitions to justify my conclusions. But everybody does that, and you must realize you do too by insisting on your own personal definition of hard and soft drugs. I also realize by the quality of your responses that you have too much integrity to be the one that has been deleting my entries. As I've always maintained, I'm not in here to pick a fight, but to learn. Thanks for your ongoing challenges.Loomis51 23:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize the Wikipedia hard and soft drug article disagrees, and that is a political issue based upon the Dutch drug policy, which lumps all synthetic "designer drugs" in with the "hard drugs" because you can never be sure what you are getting, and it is possible that when you think you're getting a "soft drug", it could really be something containing some heroin (a hard drug). This is the only basis for said labeling, and it is because those drugs are not regulated... but pure clinical versions of those same drugs from a reputable pharmaceutical laboratory would not be considered "hard drugs". --Thoric 00:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If, as thoric suggests, "the "hardness" of a drug refers only to its addictiveness -- how hard it is to stop using said drug, and how easy it is to become hooked", this would lead to some peculiar conclusions. For example, coffee would have to be considered a "harder" substance than, say, thalidomide or cyanide. That can't be right.

It is right by definition. Cyanide isn't an addictive drug. Hardness doesn't refer to danger from overdose, or how "hard" it is on your body, but even if it did (for argument's sake), nicotine, alcohol and caffeine would still remain high on the list, as all of them are hard on the body. Cocaine and amphetamines are also hard on the body, but heroin isn't so much (unless you are alleric), and the same goes for marijuana and LSD. They really don't cause much in the way of physical harm. Of course there is the "potential" for psychological problems in those who are susceptible, but lets just think of that as "mentally allergic" ;) --Thoric 17:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thoric: Do I have you on record as saying that since its more addictive, caffeine is a "harder" drug than cyanide? Just wanted to make sure. As for potential death from too much coffee, if you try hard enough, too much of pretty much anything can kill you. You can even die of a water overdose...its known as hyponatremia - see [1]

Sorry -- hard to follow all these separate "threads" ;) Yes, caffeine is a "harder" drug than cyanide because (1) cyanide isn't considered a drug, (2) cyanide isn't addictive, and (3) even if we're talking about "harmfulness" rather than "hardness", far more people become ill or die from caffeine than from cyanide. Caffeine is to blame for quite a number of health problems, most importantly high blood pressure. Although rare, there are documented deaths directly related to caffeine overdose. --Thoric 00:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionaty defines "drug" as: A substance used to treat an illness, relieve a symptom or modify a chemical process in the body for a specific purpose. According to this definition, cyanide is a drug, as it is surely a substance that has the result of modifying a chemical process in the body for a specific purpose (i.e. death). No, it isn't addictive...but the addictivess of a substance as a criteria for its "hardness" is at best controversial. See hard and soft drugs. As for the "harmfulness" argument, of course caffeine causes more harm in the general population than cyanide, because it's so commonly used compared to cyanide. Now you're presenting a logical fallacy. Say I concoct a deadly drug in my basement. You take it, you die. But it hasn't been used by anybody. Does that mean its harmless?Loomis51 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has been deleting some of my entries. If you have a problem with what I'm saying, give me a good argument against it. Don't cowardly delete my arguments.Loomis51 01:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me. Anyways, you are making your own definition of "hard" and "soft". What I'm saying is that the scientific definition of a "hard" drug is one that is strongly habit forming, where a "soft" drug is not. This is not controversial, it is based upon clear-cut scientific method. If you want to define drugs by their harmfulness, then I suggest using a more specific word, such as "harmful" or "dangerous". (Do note that by any definition, alcohol would be a dangerous, harmful and hard). Now, as for a lethal "drug", I would argue that a substance which only single purpose is for euthanasia is not really a "drug", but instead a poison. Euthanasia is typically done via a "lethal injection" of an overdose of a combination of drugs which individually at lower doses serve a non-lethal medical purpose. I wouldn't say that your "deadly drug" is any more "harmless" than any other poison, but that certainly doesn't make it a "hard drug" any more than drain cleaner is a hard drug. --Thoric 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have said several times that the term "hard" and "soft" with respect to drugs refers only to addiction, nothing more. This is why nicotine is the hardest drug known to man. A drug's impact on your ability to function actually makes it "softer", because it is the drugs that allow you to continue to function (walk, talk, drive, work, concentrate, etc) that end up being the most addictive, and therefore the most "hard". For those who don't know, depending on dosage, cocaine, methamphetamine and even heroin can still allow you to be quite functional. Cocaine has been compared to a strong cup of coffee. Amphetamines were given to US fighter pilots to keep them awake and alert. An extremely famous doctor (will get you the name later if you want it) was addicted to morphine throughout most of his career, but remained a fully functional surgeon. There are functional alcoholics as well, but they are more likely to be noticed due to the smell of alcohol, the effects on motor control, and damage to the brain and liver. --Thoric 00:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You can add Freud to the list, he was a regular cocaine user and prescribed it to his patients.Loomis51 22:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as saying LSD can cause mental problems, but it can certainly trigger them for many with some predisposition for mental and/or emotional illness, a population far greater than many of you seem to imagine. I've had personal experiences with many individuals who were "pushed over the edge" by LSD, who regret EVER having taken the drug, and who now cannot live full, healthy lives. LSD is a dangerous drug, not just dangerous for the "mentally allergic" as Thoric so flippantly calls them. I've seen the damage LSD can do.Loomis51 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

LSD is dangerous in the hands of the inexperienced, as can be any drug, especially alcohol. There are exceedingly few people in the world who have been as you say, "pushed over the edge" by LSD, and none of these received LSD in a therapeutic setting. All you are providing is anecdotal evidence that somebody you know took what they believed to be LSD in an uncontrolled setting, without knowing what they were doing, had a bad experience, and use it upon which to blame all the problems in their life. --Thoric 00:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

alcohol - one of the most intense physical withdrawals of any drug... worse than that of heroin, as an alcohol withdrawal can actually kill you. alcohol has more addicts than just about any drug (if not absolutely any). LSD addicts just dont exist, ill have to see it before i believe it. it is certainly intoxicating, but alcohol is a comparatively hard and heavily addictive drug. but having said that (and having done LSD) i must say that people need to stop glorifying LSD as a "mind opening" drug. meditiation is mind-opening, reading is mind-opening. LSD can just drive you crazy. if you think syd barrett is one of the more open-minded individuals of our time, id hesitate to aspire to open-mindedness.

Amen to that. At least the second part about LSD. Its funny though that you first state that LSD addicts don't exist, then make reference to Syd Barrett. How is/was he not an LSD addict? Surely the amount and frequency of his LSD intake, if it were any other drug, would lead one to believe that he was an addict. I suppose it all depends on your definition of the term "addict".

With regards to alcohol, statistics can be misleading. I would definitely agree that alcohol has more abusers (a neutral term...as I mentioned above, "addiction" can be a difficult term to define) than any other intoxicating drug. But as surely as alcohol is the most abused intoxicating drug, it is by far the most used. Think about it. There are nearly 6 billion people on this planet, and so I would venture to estimate that the number of people who have experimented with alcohol to number in the billions. (With due regard for the large number of those who have never had a drink for religious or other reasons...i.e. devout muslims, mormons, strict teatotallers (sp?) etc...)

The same can not be said of heroin, cocaine or LSD. The number of those who have "experimented" with these drugs is miniscule in comparison to alcohol. Therefore, naturally, alcohol will have a far higher number of abusers than any other drug. This does not mean, however that alcohol is anywhere near as "hard" a drug than is heroin, cocaine or LSD. One should be looking at the individual, "per-person" rate of abuse. If that were the yard-stick, it would become clear that "experimenting" with heroin, cocaine or LSD is far more likely to result in abuse than is "experimenting" with alcohol by having the occasional drink. Loomis51 22:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't even know what the hell you're talking about. 24 million people alive today, have tried LSD in the US (look up NSDUH 2004 on Google). The British Prime Minister's Office has prepared a comprehensive drug trade report, which I linked to above, but which I'll link to again. This report covers the harms and addictive potential of drugs. Do some research first. Gyan 00:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Easy there, cowboy, we're trying to have a civilised debate here. It's unfortunate though that you didn't even check your own source. According to the UK study, 104,000 people in England and Wales used LSD in the past year, while 25.6 million used alcohol. That means that there was one LSD user for about 250 alcohol users. I think 250 to 1 would qualify as miniscule, don't you think?Loomis51 00:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, check your numbers. You say: "If you assume that 150 million have at least "experimented" with alcohol"...wait a minute, the US has nearly 300 million people. Do you mean to say that only about half have ever had a drink?

In any case, someone is really screwing around with this site, so I won't bother elaborating on my argument any longer. I had a whole bunch of arguments and they all got deleted. I'm in no mood to start all over again. Whoever deleted my arguments, shame on you...if you disagree, be a decent person and present an opposing argument. Don't just delete mine like the coward you are.Loomis51 03:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to hard and soft drugs in this article, as it does not seem to me helpful to use this contentious and essentially political categorization scheme in passing. Although it may refer to the severity of consequences of (ab)use, it appears to me to be making a value judgement. --MattBagg 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to toss in my bit: LSD is only "hard" in the sense that it is theoretically the strongest possible psychoactive substance creatable by man. It is neither physiologically addictive nor toxic. People on LSD, as I can verify from personal observations, are not prone to big changes in behavior. They do not lose sanity, and they do not desire to do stupid and risky things, unless that was already a facet of their personality. I have always been of the opinion that the US wanted to ban LSD in order to keep citizens from thinking outside the box, so to speak. - CorbinSimpson 14:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Leads me to wonder...is there any documented proof that LSD use can lead to delusional paranoia about the government's supposed goal of "controlling our thoughts"? I always thought you had to be schizophrenic to believe such nonsense. :) Loomis51 18:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

LSD can model some aspects of schizophrenia, mainly that you are less able to block out paranoid thoughts. These effects are only for the duration of the experience, but it can make you stop and think. If you do stop and think about it, the government certainly does want to influence our thoughts -- what do you think national campaigns are all about? Govenment propaganda is all about thought control. How can you believe otherwise? Now of course only schizophrenics usually end up believing that everything in the world is a targeted conspiracy against them personally... but one cannot believe that everything the government does is in their best interest. The truth lies somewhere upon this spectrum. --Thoric 18:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course the government wants to influence our thoughts. On that I agree. But so do the media, academia etc...even yours truly is trying to influence your thoughts by writing this very paragraph. But this is a far cry from some sort of monolithic government mind-control that seems to be implied by the term "propaganda", which I believe is only applicable to totalitarian one-party states such as Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union. In the free world, attempts to influence our thoughts depend on the government of the day, and which person/arm of government is speaking. Wait a minute here, weren't we talking about LSD?lol Loomis51 01:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Government propaganda is alive and well, in a number of states, such as Iran, Russia and the US. What's so surprising about that? Haiduc 02:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said government propaganda wasn't alive and well. Its definitely alive and well in places like North Korea and Iran (and most of the Arab world for that matter).(Please, don't bother correcting me, I know Iranians aren't Arabs). Government propaganda may be somewhat alive and well in Russia...but to extend it to the U.S....well I guess you're using a different definition of the term propaganda than I am. Loomis51

What do you call paying journalists for favorable copy, and using government funds to promote administration agenda? Haiduc 23:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda is defined as: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person or ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. The DEA, NIMH and FDA certainly do this, among other organizations. --Thoric 00:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. According to the above definition of "propaganda", pretty much anyone with an opinion and a cause, as harmless or indeed as beneficial as the cause may be, is guilty of spreading "propaganda". Also, according to the above definition, the information need not be false for one to be accused of spreading propaganda. According to the above definition, the medical society is "spreading propaganda" when it says that smoking can lead to cancer. After all, all they're doing is "spreading information for the purpose of helping a cause, or a person". Similarly, the weather channel is "spreading propaganda" when it tells you the temperature or level of humidity they've measured. Again, after all, all they're doing is "spreading information for the purpose of helping a person (the viewer)" (Or if you want to be extra-cynical about it, for the cause of making profit by drawing viewers to watch their station.) If that's all that propaganda is, then I don't see why it should be such a concern that the government (or anybody else, for that matter) spreads propaganda. Government propaganda is perfectly fine with me.Loomis51 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You missed that important part that while propaganda may not need to be falsehoods, it is not required to be factual, and most often contains ideologies rather than certainties. The wikipedia article states: Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. This is a more clear definition, that propaganda is the propagation of an opinion or belief -- point of view (POV). For this reason, government propaganda is certainly not fine with me. --Thoric 18:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thoric, when I used the Wikipedia definition of hard and soft drugs you dismissed it because you didn't agree with it. Now you're using Wikipedia as a definitive source to disprove my argument? C'mon, gimme a break, you can't have it both ways. You can't use Wikipedia's definitions only when they suit you and dismiss them as nonsense when you disagree.

Wait a minute, you're putting words in my mouth. I clearly stated that the hard and soft drugs article is based on the Dutch drug policy, and outlined why they list clearly soft drugs (such as LSD) as hard, while other soft drugs (such as psilocybin) were soft. The Dutch drug policy is not the only existing definition of "hard" and "soft" drugs, and hence why I provided the link to the scientific report of the relative addictiveness of drugs which shows that LSD and psilocybin are given the same rating. --Thoric 23:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you've changed your definition of propaganda, which is what I excpected you to do through my little old reductio ad absurdum argument. But you're contradicting yourself. So which is it? Is propaganda simply the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person or does it require a more sinister motive? Make up your mind...you can't have it both ways.

I didn't say it had to have a sinister motive, but that it didn't have to be true, and it was most often biased towards a certain point of view. --Thoric 23:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If its the first definition, then I have no problem with propaganda. If its the second, then I believe a distinction should be made between the information provided by a nation's democratically elected government in a society where freedom of the press, and more particularly, freedom to unabashedly criticize the government's presentation of such information is constitutionally enshrined and repeatedly upheld by the courts of such nation, and the type of propaganda spewn out by one-party dictatorships. Washington isn't controlling our minds. Neither is Ottawa. Tehran and Pyongyang are doing their best to control the minds of their citizens. If you can't see a fundamental distinction between Washington and Ottawa on the one hand, and Tehran and Pyongyang on the other, then I don't see the point in continuing this debate.

It is moreso the second than the first. Propaganda implies a point of view, and facts are optional. Nearly every organization has an interest to serve, and their propaganda is always self-serving. You'd never see the DEA or NIDA actually claiming that a drug which was not a conglomerate pharmaceutical was beneficial in any way, or in the very least, "not as bad as we previously thought". --Thoric 23:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

More generally, Thoric, you tend to criticize those very methods of argument that you yourself employ. If I were to dare use expressions like "propaganda most often contains ideologies rather than certainties", you'd tell me that I was at best basing my assertion on anectdotal evidence, and you'd insist that I back up my assertion with proof.

I always try to back up my assertations with proof. The propaganda article contains many citations. I should have referenced it in the first place. I generally support what most Wikipedia articles state, and if I disagree with them, I try to set them right. --Thoric 23:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thoric, you constantly contradict yourself, you rely heavily on specious reasoning, and much more generally you're not man enough to admit when you're wrong. I see no further point in debating with someone who I thought had the mental faculties to argue logically. Indeed, perhaps you should cut down on the acid and perhaps then you're mind will regain its ability to formulate logical arguments.Loomis51 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how clarification can be seen as contradition. Please point out where I contradicted myself. As for western governmental control over knowledge and information, I will agree that the level of control is nothing compared to Korea or China, but there is plenty of verifiable evidence of US based information suppression. As for something recent, please check out this website: Transnational Institute, and read the section on the WHO Cocaine project. Check out the site Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, and read about the narcotics officers who have tired of the lies and the games. Read an online copy of The Consumers Union Report - Licit and Illicit Drugs (I have a bound print copy, this isn't just some web e-book, but a real publication with cites sources), which details government suppression ordered by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. --Thoric 23:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally !!!, Thoric admits he may have made an error!!! Shall I break out the champagne? Oh wait, better not...alcohol is a hard drug...wouldn't want that!!! Maybe we should break out some blotter paper!!!

Indeed, western governmental influence is nothing compared to Korea, China or Iran. In fact, though you may state all the "lies and games" of the U.S. government, the plain truth is that an American president, if he can lie to the people, must be extremely restricted in such lies. Grande conspiracies are impossible. After all, the President of the United States doesn't even have the power to order a simple break-in or even the power to enjoy a blowjob in the Oval Office without being impeached. All I can say is that I tend to dismiss most conspiracy theories as paranoid nonsense, include those having to do with the supossed "US suppression of LSD in order to keep citizens from thinking outside the box, so to speak."Loomis51 00:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as LSD goes, there is a book detailing the US goverment and CIA involvement with LSD. It's called Acid Dreams (ISBN 0802130623). I'm in the process of reading it now, and I highly recommend it. Presidents may not get away with lies for long, but that doesn't stop them from lying, and trying to cover their tracks, but I wasn't even talking about presidents so much as government agencies that are far harder to "impeach" ;) Check out Project MKULTRA. --Thoric 00:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright / plagiarism issue

This page seems to plagiarize much of http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/dea/product/lsd/lsd-5.htm for example take the following paragraph from fas.org:

"Only a small amount of ergotamine tartrate is required to produce LSD in large batches. For example, 25 kilograms of ergotamine tartrate can produce 5 or 6 kilograms of pure LSD crystal that, under ideal circumstances, could be processed into 100 million dosage units, more than enough to meet what is believed to be the entire annual U.S. demand for the hallucinogen. LSD manufacturers need only import a small quantity of the substance and, thus, enjoy the advantages of ease of concealment and transport not available to traffickers of other illegal drugs, primarily marijuana and cocaine. "

and compare to this to the paragraph in this article:

"Only a small amount of ergotamine tartrate is required to produce LSD in large batches. For example, 25 kilograms of ergotamine tartrate can produce 5 or 6 kilograms of pure LSD crystal that, under ideal circumstances, could be processed into 100 million dosage units (at 50 micrograms per dose), more than enough to meet what is believed to be the entire annual U.S. demand for the drug. LSD manufacturers need only create a small quantity of the substance and, thus, enjoy the advantages of ease of concealment and transport not available to traffickers of other illegal drugs, primarily marijuana and cocaine."

AlfredR 16:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That text is from a US gov't department. That would usually mean it's not copyrighted. Of course, common sense (and probably some sort of Wikipedia policy) prescribes that it ought to be quoted and cited, rather than copied.213.84.239.37 13:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

addiction

Every drug can induce psychological addiction!, see the wiki-atrticle addiction! And its not serious, to use a fifty years old study to proof things like alcoholic anonymous isn't succesfull with sobering people. so please, don't revert my version.

The term addiction should not be used lightly. It is difficult to label something done on a low frequency basis (say once per week, or twice per month) as an addiction. Due to LSD's rapid tolerance effect, you couldn't successfully get an effect from it more often than twice per week, making it difficult to "get hooked". At best I'd say that people become fascinated with it, rather than addicted. --Thoric 06:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i can't belief that some herereally seems to belief, that a over 50 years old study could proof anything. "aa" was founded in the fifty's, you must use newer studys to proof something. by the way, i think its danergerous to say people, they should use lsd to stop there addiction, many heroin users and alcoholics have mental diseases, so they need real help, they need a therapy and its not good for them to use other drugs, they need time to find there own way inside theresselfs, using lsd can be an other way to hide from reallity.

Both sides of the argument are valid. It depends on the person and the situation. FWIW, some clinicians think that MDMA can be used to improve the quality of life of terminal cancer patients. [2] --Viriditas | Talk 08:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

well, i think its not the main idea to write an encylopedia with the knowledge of the 50's. whoever tries to argue with studies from the 50's, please switch on your mind. "alcoholics anonymous" have nwom more than 10 million members, much more than 50 years ago.

If the government didn't force LSD studies to cease in the 60's, then we'd have a lot more recent studies to quote. The AA reference was not from 50 years ago. Twelve step programs like AA are notoriously poor at "curing" people because they put too little focus on what drove these people to abuse alcohol (or drugs), and too much focus on abstinence, and convincing the alcoholic that they are powerless over alcohol, when really they need to realize that they need to learn control and face their problems instead of drowning their sorrows in a bottle. If anything AA enables alcoholics to keep "falling off the wagon" using the excuse that they can't help themselves because they are "powerless" to the demon drink. I don't doubt AA is popular with alcoholics. It gives them a scapegoat (the alcohol) rather than face their true inner demons. --Thoric 06:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poor Thoric is obviously ignorant of 12 step programs. Narcotics Anonymous states that our lives had become unmanagable as a result of drugs and that by staying clean we can look at the reasons{inner demons} why we tried to escape reality. It's about accepting life on lifes terms ,personal responsability, not being a self centered pig and living spiritualy. N.A. teaches people to live in reality and not to be a pussy and run to some chemical because they had a hard day, they're bored, or to get some false sense of enlightenment. Anybody that uses drugs is trying to escape reality and can't handle life. P.S...ALCHOHOL is a drug.

I'm not ignorant of 12 step programs -- you obviously didn't read what I wrote. AA/NA's foundation is based on the concept that the user is powerless over the drug (I know alcohol is a drug), and that only through abstinence will recovery be possible. The number of days since the last drink/drug use is the only measure of achievement, rather than the quantity/circumstances of use. All other (far more important) concepts are secondary. This is the problem with 12 step programs -- especially labelling the user as powerless. What the drug/alcohol abuser needs is a good kick in the ass stating that only they have the power to give up the cycle of abuse, and they need to find out why they have gotten into that pattern, and do what they need to to get out of it. It just so happens that psychedelic drugs (i.e. LSD) are excellent facilitators of self-guided psychotherapy. LSD has the complete opposite effect of hard escapism drugs like alcohol, heroin, cocaine or amphetamines. It forces you to face your inner demons, and will reveal everything that you've been blocking out. --Thoric 20:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There is something to Hallucinogens like LSD helping people overcome addiction. In Canada there are trials going on using Ibogaine to treat opiate and alcohol addictions. From personal experience I suspect these trials will be atleast partially succesful. (Problems with the treatment may turn up of course, but it's not fair to dismiss it out of prejudice instilled by U.S. government anti-drug "education.") I have always had a "fascination" with hallucinogens, and have taken them every once in a while, at one time I used hallucinogens at most once a month, but most of the time it was less than that. In a completley unrelated social environment to my hallucinogen use I began to use pain medications (prescription opiates) and developed an addiction. When I was taking pain medication I absolutely could not tolerate hallucinogens because of the feelings it generated related to my opiate use. Once when I took psilocybin, or "shrooms," I started having a bad trip, so I tried to take some oxycontin thinking it would make me feel better. Just the opposite happened, the mushrooms made me feel that I had put something in my body that I shouldn't have, and I had one of the worst mushroom trips of my life. For anyone who has ever taken an opiate this is extremely counter-intuitive because in almost ever other situation, even during sever trauma, opiates will artificially give you a sense of well being. Hallucinogens apparently overide this effect.

There is one big problem with hallucinogens. Some of the "insights" you can gain from them are ambiguous and can be taken too seriously and to extremes--that's why some hallucinogen users become so detached from reality (from my experience, which is substantial, this only happens to a minority of users). But I think this problem could be easily overcome if these proposed treatments using hallucinogens were administered with experienced psychological counseling to guide the patient. --Brentt 03:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

suggested re-write

The section on addiction needs a re-write, but it's a bit too extensive for me to just plunk it in without discussion. Here are the points that I think need to be made:

• LSD is not, in a clinical sense, addictive (this is pretty well stated, now)
• Addictive behavior can be attached to any drug or even activity, including LSD
• Lose the whole bit about "anti-drug" and dealing with your "psyche", and instead:
• To quote Human Psychedelic Research: A Historical And Sociological Analysis, an undergraduate thesis by Luke Williams at Cambridge University:

"psychedelic therapy was predominantly an American phenomena, but another major use of this type of therapy was in Prague. Here, Stanislov Grof used LSD to treat heroin addicts in much the same way"

• In that light, re-write the "anti-drug" bit with a focus on LSD's use in experimental psychotherapy, and specifically in the treatment of heroin addiction.

All things consdiered, most of this article is quite sound, which is why I'm trying to pitch in. -- Harmil 21:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on your objection to the "anti-drug" reference? It explains the nature of how psychedelic psychotherapy works, basically through exposing the psyche to that which the patient has been suppressing. Once these underlying issues are exposed and dealt with, the patient no longer needs to seek asylum from them through the use of hard (escapism inducing) drugs such as alcohol and/or heroin. --Thoric 21:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I mostly find the anti-drug reference problematic because it does not cite any experts. In addition, LSD exposure and LSD psychotherapy are not the same thing. Describing the psychedelic psychotherapy process is not relevant to most LSD use unless one thinks that LSD exposure is inherently psychotherapeutic. I am aware that some believe this. However, I know of no peer reviewed publications that are evidence for this. --MattBagg 18:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation request

Many experts consider drugs such as LSD to be a sort of anti-drug (encourages users to stop using drugs), as it forces the user to face issues and problems in their psyche in contrast to the hard drugs used for escapism purposes...

This is a fascinating statement that deserves to be sourced. --Viriditas | Talk 09:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Found some info: "In 1996, [John Halpern associate director of substance abuse research at Harvard University's McLean Hospital] reviewed almost 100 substance abuse trials involving LSD, psilocybin, DMT and ibogaine, an extract of the African shrub Tabernanthe iboga. Halpern found tentative evidence that the drugs can reduce addicts' cravings during a post-trip "afterglow" lasting for a month or two. Exactly how this happens is something of a mystery. A popular theory is that the benefits stem from the drugs' psychological effects, which include profound insights and cathartic emotions, but Halpern suspects that there may be a biochemical explanation too." [3] --Viriditas | Talk 10:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also note that Humphry Osmond (as well as Timothy Leary) performed research showing that LSD had a high potential for treating alcoholism. --Thoric 06:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Halpern quote is not particularly helpful because it lumps ibogaine in with LSD. Ibogaine probably has an unrelated mechanism to that of LSD and ibogaine probably is useful in treating addiction. --MattBagg 17:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, since Halpern does clearly state in that quote that the "anti-addiction" effects may be due to the psychological experience itself, and perhaps not exclusively due to the drug's pharmacological method of action. However, there are, perhaps, quotes that would better explain the phenomenon. --Muugokszhiion 05:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Another citation request

The claim Contrary to common belief, scientific studies could not confirm that LSD can cause lasting psychoses, according to a meta-study' is backed with a link to a Master's Thesis. A peer reviewed publication would be much more convincing. I expect there is one? (Note that a master or PhD thesis whose result have not been published elsewhere sounds highly suspicious in natural sciences. It means: His work was not good enough to be published in a respected journal, but as we are nice guys we awarded his MSc anyway.) Simon A. 16:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the author is quoting a peer reviewed publication, in this instance: Warner, R & Taylor, D (Jan 1994) "Substance Use among the Mentally Ill: Prevalence, reasons for use: Effects on Illness". American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 64(1). --Viriditas | Talk 11:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A key citation on this topic is Rick Strassman (1984). Adverse reactions to psychedelic drugs. A review of the literature. J Nerv Ment Dis 172:577-94. He reviews the literature and, as I recall, opines that psychedelics, like LSD, may at most play a nonspecific role in triggering psychosis in vulnerable individuals. -- Matt Baggott --MattBagg 17:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Acute Duration

Maybe the wording is a little confusing? Need more emphasis on the high doses part? Maybe an example dose? 500ug? 1000ug? --Thoric 18:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this does confuse me. Increase in dose certainly increases intensity. There me be some point where it is so intense that it is impossible to talk about one experience being more intense than another, in the the word loses its meaning, but it still probobly has some effect on the experience. --Benna 22:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this dose is high... somewhere around 500ug for the average person (but different for different people) at where the intensity peaks out, but the duration is increased... but it's not like if you take 5000ug that you'd be tripping for 24 hours or more... if so, it was likely on some other substance (STP/DOM). --Thoric 23:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

500ug sounds too low to me. I think we should try to find some sources for this to get that nailed down. --Benna 02:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again this paragraph is unclear and leads to conflicting editing. The original intent seems to be trying to describe the curve of intensity versus duration with respect to dosage, stating that after a certain dosage, intensity remains relatively constant, while the duration increases. Also to be noted is that the rate of ingestion can also determine the shape of the curve. For example, if half a dose (say 125mcg) was taken, then followed up with the other half dose a half hour later, the curve would be more gradual than if the entire dose was taken all at once. A rapid onset will result in a rapid comedown. --Thoric 17:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot of back-and-forth edits being made on the "duration increases vs intensity increases" point... we need to discuss this and clear it up so everyone isn't constantly reverting edits. See the history page on the main article. --Muugokszhiion 23:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed addition by 67.84.9.9 stating that "LSD users may typically smoke marijuana to take 'the edge' off of an intense trip" By most accounts, marijuana intensifies the experience, and is most often used to help extend the intensity of the peak when it starts to wane. I would certainly not recommend cannabis to someone having an overly intense LSD experience. --Thoric 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

afd of list of notable people . . .

List of notable people who have commented on the LSD experience, formerly a section of this article, has been afd'd. the entry is here. --Heah (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Spirituality

I believe statements such as "it often catalyzes intense spiritual experiences" and a study showing that "hallucinogens could reliably be used to induce mystical religious states" are POV or downright incorrect. The idea that a "mystical religious state" can even exist is at the very least unproven and at the very most impossible. Since it has not been proven that such a state exists, then it is ludicrous to say a study has shown that something can induce a such a state until a study proving such a state exists in the first place is carried out. Maybe there should be some rewording because this is extremely inappropriate. Solidusspriggan 07:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

if you'll read closely, nowhere does it assert that "mystical religious states" are some kind of factual, extant thing. it does state, however, that hallucinogens can trigger the experience of such- which is entirely true. whether you beleive in the validity of mystical states of experience is one thing; however, saying an "experience" is triggered and "users feel they have come into contact with a greater spiritual or cosmic order" is not trying to claim some kind of truth or validity for mystical states.

Furthermore, the experience very much does exist. whatever it might mean is not scientifically established and probably never will be, but again this article makes no claim about what the eperience might mean or whether or not it should be perceived as a valid way to understand the universe. altered states of consciousness, however, which often include the experience/feeling of mystical union etc, are very much a reality. Trying to deny the existence of altered states of consciousness is rather rediculous, as they have been scientifically charted. If you think we should be denying the existence of mystical states due to the a lack of empirical evidence i'd recomend reading some William James and other radical empiricists.

--Heah (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that rigorous scientific proof is necessary when talking about "Mystical religious states." The very idea is nebulous, hence strict scientific proof of LSD's ability to induce such states should not be required. James Aguilar 09:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

a valid point- solidusspriggan may want to re-read the NPOV guidelines, particularly the sections on pseudoscience, religion, and the rest of the objections and clarifications section. --Heah (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

let me speak from experience, as somebody who meditates at least three times daily (which may be "spiritual") and has taken LSD more than a few times....

"spirituality" is something that people define on their own terms. many people think that intellectualism, for instance, is a form of spirituality (or at least a necessary tool of spirituality), while many people think that intellectualism is the antithesis of spirituality.

having said that, and having done LSD, i can tell you that it is incredibly easy for an LSD user to convince himself that he is undergoing a "spiritual" experience. in his eyes that is completely true, which is arguably all that matters.

Citations

the list of people has been removed to below pending citations. yes, its obvious that timothy leary used acid, but we still need to cite that, especially when we are discussing people and illicit drug use. This was done on the Mescaline (talk page) page and it worked well.

• Dr. Richard Alpert (later known as Ram Dass)
• Dr. Stanislav Grof Czech researcher
• Dr. Albert Hofmann
• Dr. Timothy Leary
• Dr. John Lilly USA researcher
• Dr. Ralph Metzner
• Dr. Humphry Osmond
• Michael Hollingshead Introduced Tim Leary to LSD
• Mark McCloud The Father of LSD Blotter Acid Art Collecting
• Raphael Labro LSD Expressionist
• Owsley Stanley Famous LSD chemist of the 1960's
• Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
• Ken Kesey, author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
• Psychedelic rock bands associated with LSD use: Grateful Dead, Phish, The Beatles, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, The Mars Volta, Jefferson Airplane, Smashing Pumpkins, Pink Floyd (But only during mid 60's while led by original band leader Syd Barrett. After the inclusion of David Gilmour and the leaving of Syd Barrett in 1968, LSD was no longer a factor), Tool (especially their later works Ænima and Lateralus). --Preceding unsigned comment by Heah

These notable people and their relationship to LSD are all cited on their respective Wikipedia pages. Just to be sure, I will personally go through every one of them. If I don't find a cite, I'll add {{fact}} next to their name. Until that time, I am leaving the content in the article. Fact checking shouldn't take me more than an hour. --Viriditas 01:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it just occurred to me that these names are part of a "related topics" section, so there's no need to cite sources since the entries are self-explanatory. If there's a question about the authenticity of one of the entries, by all means bring it up. Also, you need to keep in mind that many of these people were not engaged in illicit drug use, but experimented with LSD when it was legal. --Viriditas 01:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

ok, that's fine with me. i didn't even think about the fact that virtually this entire list is referred to in the article . . . it was an issue that came up during the afd of List of notable people who have commented on the LSD experience, and long, uncited lists of users is something found fairly often on articles such as these. apologies for creating more work for you, but thanks for helping to get this straightened out. --Heah (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Source checking

This is a source check requested by Heah for the related topics section:

• Dr. Richard Alpert (later known as Ram Dass): He describes experimenting with LSD in his 1971 book, Be Here Now. Many refs from that book, including: "I took five people and we locked ourselves in a building for three weeks and we took 400 micrograms of LSD every four hours." p.23. See also: Harvard Psilocybin Project.
• Dr. Stanislav Grof: His article has significant citations, including his 1980 book, LSD Psychotherapy.
• Dr. Albert Hofmann: See article. Discoverer of LSD. Refer to the 1981 book, LSD, My Problem Child.
• Dr. Timothy Leary: See article for extensive citations. Refer to the 1965 book, The Politics of Ecstasy.
• Dr. John Lilly: See article. Refer to the 1972 books, Programming the Human Biocomputer (particularly Summary of Experiments with LSD-25) and Center of the Cyclone.
• Dr. Ralph Metzner: Refer to The Psychedelic Experience and The Unfolding Self: Varieties of Transformative Experience.
• Dr. Humphry Osmond: See article for cites. Researcher, invented the term "psychedelic" and talked about his own experiences. [4]
• Michael Hollingshead: Introduced LSD to Leary in 1962. [5]
• Mark McCloud: Father of LSD blotter art collecting [6]

Raphael Labro LSD Expressionist ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›

• Owsley Stanley Famous LSD chemist of the 1960s. [7]
• Hunter S. Thompson: See p. 9 [8] of Hunter S. Thompson [9] by William McKeen. See also: Hell's Angels, p. 235; and BBC obit.
• Ken Kesey. [10] [11]

LSD conference: Albert Hofmann's 100th Birthday

International Symposium on the occasion of the 100th Birthday of Albert Hofmann

13 to 15 January 2006, Convention Center Basel, Switzerland

Lectures • Panels • Seminars • Workshops • Concerts • Exhibitions • Parties

On the occasion of the 100th birthday of Dr. Albert Hofmann on 11 January 2006, the Gaia Media Foundation stages an International Symposium on the most widely known and most controversial discovery of this outstanding scientist. (See www.lsd.info)

Just figured everyone here would be interested :) I know I am. Sadly, I'm not sure if I'll be able to go. It sounds like a once in a lifetime experience.

--Thoric 19:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the basis for claiming the CIA supplied lots of LSD to Leary?

I was surprised to see the unsubstantiated allegation that Tim Leary was supplied by the CIA with large amounts of LSD which he in turn distributed. What's the basis of this claim? I believe this to be an urban legend.

I suspect it might come from the claim that Ronald Hadley Stark was alledgedly a CIA agent. He was a con artist and made this claim in a successful effort to get out of jail in Italy. [Lobster "The Journal of Parapolitics" Summer 1998 issue 35, book review of Acid: the secret history of LSD]. Stark did supply some LSD to the Brotherhood of Eternal Love (BEL) [see US v Sand, Scully, Friedman, Stark, Randall, et al, CR73-306SC, 1973-4 San Francisco] from 1970-1973.

The Orange County California grand jury did allege in a 1972 indictment [C29725] that Tim Leary conspired with BEL to distribute drugs, but no evidence developed that Leary was directly involved in LSD distriution - he did not act as a conduit from Stark to BEL, for example. Stark delt directly with Michael Randall, the head of BEL's LSD distribution network at that time [see also the October 3, 1973 US Senate Internal Security Subcommitte hearing on Hashish Smuggling and Passport Fraud: The Brotherhood of Eternal Love].

Tim Leary was a very vocal advocate for LSD use but I'm unaware of any convincing evidence that he was a conduit for its distrubution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.36.121.234 (talk • contribs) .

I've taken the liberty of commenting out the unverified claim you mentioned. Here is a copy of it, for anyone who's interested. It's still there, in the middle of the paragraph beginning "Several...", under Origin.

Dr. Leary was then (allegedly unbeknownst to himself) approached by agents of the CIA, who supplied him with such quantity of purified LSD-25 that he and Dr. Alpert/Ram Dass made available to a much wider portion of the public.

If anyone wants to verify that, you know what to do. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for not signing in before posting the first comment in this thread. I did not intend to be anonymous. TimScully 22:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Lack of Citations to Support Claim of the Claims of LSD Being a Superior Analgesic

For Clarity, please add your comments at the bottom

If this entry is one of the best of articles in the Wikipedia, the standards of the Wikipedia are extremely low. As with so many controversial subjects in the Wikipedia, the true believers have written an incredibly biased and inaccurate article. Simply put, the article is very much biased toward the argument that LSD is some sort of wonder drug. There is little in journals of juried science to support the enthusiastic claims of LSD being such.

Because such research has been covered up and suppressed. Also, human research with LSD has been pretty much illegal for the past 40 years. How much new research can you expect to find for something banned?

Examples of the bias and shoddy research abound. For example, the LSD#Physical section on the physical effects of LSD makes several unsupported claims. A quick search on PubMed shows the claim that LSD has been show to be a more effective analgesic than opiates to have no basis in the medical literature. A PubMed search with the terms "lysergic acid diethylamide pain opiate" and uncovered no documents to support this claim. There is a 1964 article that is obliquely applicable but that is it. Likewise, a search using the terms "lysergic acid diethylamide analgesic" showed nothing to support the claim.

Equally unsupported by juried medical research is the claim that LSD is useful in cluster headache treatment. A PubMed search using the terms "lysergic acid diethylamide cluster headache" turned no documents. That suggests the putative "research" cited on LSD as a cluster headache treatment is not up to snuff. Or more bluntly, it appears to be fake science, not unlike Creation Science and deserves the same (lack of) respect as science. Even if the one source cited is a legitimate, peer reviewed source of research, one study hardly is definitive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.94.77 (talk • contribs) .

A google search of -- "cluster headache" lsd -- turned up over 1000 articles. [12] [13] [14] BTW, PubMed is not an unbiased source, it is government funded by one of the most repressive governments in the world -- the United States of America. The whole point of Wikipedia is that articles contain varying POVs, including recent discoveries. Also see LSD Finds New Respectability. If you do some real research into the subject, you will find out that LSD was in fact considered a "wonder drug" after its discovering in 1943, up until its criminalization in 1967. Research slowed after heavy restrictions were placed on it in 1962, and pretty much went underground in 1967. Only very recently has LSD been making a comeback after over 40 years of suppression. In fact, there is a large symposium on LSD in about three weeks in Basel, Switzerland, celebrating Albert Hofmann's 100th birthday and featuring over 80 experts on the subject. --Thoric 08:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I can do google search of creation science and turn up lots of stuff. But that does not make it good science. Despite your claims, there is little data supporting any therapeutic use for LSD. You need more than one study. Thhat you have to resort to claiming government conspiracy against LSD rather than facing the truth that data are lacking to support LSD as a therapy. The articles you cite simply are not up to standards of modern research (cluster busters, MAPS, etc) or don't support your claims[15]. The Science Daily article is not original research, and what it does say is LSD might be useful for some psychiatric research. Hey, it might be--but that hardly means it is good for anything. One use the orginal article[16]that the Science Daily article summarizes is recreating psychosis, including delirium tremens. Beyond the fact that DTs are primarily caused by gabanergic rather serotinergic receptor systems, there is little to suggest LSD as a useful therapy. (I don't deny the usefulness in having a means to induce controlled psychosis. But again, schizophrenic psychosis is believed to be primarily a dopaminergic event.) So even what you cite as support offers little real substance.

That said, I don't think LSD is any more dangerous in most ways than alcohol, although I have not thoroughly reseached the danger. I do acknowledge that the goverment in the mid '60s went after it, hammer and tongs. Nevertheless, there little or no data exists to show that LSD has any therapeutic uses.

As to the purposes of the wikipedia, I think you fail to understand it. My complaint is not that the article presents multiple views. Rather, I object to the article because it lacks a neutral viewpoint. The positive claims in the one section made about LSD are unsubstantiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.94.77 (talk • contribs) .

That I can spend ten minutes doing research and show the claims of one section of this article are at best dubious--and most likely just wrong--does not speak well of this article.

So your "ten minutes of research" qualifies you as some sort of authority? --Thoric 08:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No, my point, which you ignore on purpose, is all that it too was 10 minutes to debunk one section. I could easily debunk the rest of the article that quickly as it is filled with half-truths. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.94.77 (talk • contribs) .

I suggest this article needs a thorough vetting to eliminate all the unsubstantiated or dubious claims made here.

I, however, doubt that it will receive an objective review, as the true believers in this pseudoscientific article will howl and scream should truly objective information be posted, as the truth does not fit with their agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.94.77 (talk • contribs) .

Maybe you should first investigate why all the promising research on LSD in the 40s, 50s and 60s was covered up and surppressed? Start at the beginning back in 1943. Or maybe this is against your agenda.

The old "ad hominem" attack and weird conspiracy theories. Typical move by true believers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.94.77 (talk • contribs) .

Weird conspiracy theories? I can cite reputable publications which document government suppression including the destruction and removal of books and periodicals from national public libraries. --Thoric 22:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The "promising research" of that time is still out there to be reviewed. A review of this literature, though, shows it is not so promising. The research is dubious at best. There were all sorts of ideas that were researched then that now are regarded as wacky. Nothing in this article supports the claims made for LSD being useful. There is simple no good, objective data that shows that LSD has any sort of therapeutic value--just as there is limited data to show that it is harmful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.94.77 (talk • contribs) .

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Again I state that during the twenty year period that LSD was legal, it was quite powerful in psychotherapy when used properly. Do a little research on Dr. Stanislav Grof who was a pioneer of LSD psychotherapy. Years worth of regular therapy was completed in months. Dr. Humphry Osmond also did groundbreaking work with LSD.

I trained with psychiatrists of that era, many of whom are familiar with the research. Thay regard the research as crap. The reason is not that they like or dislike LSD. Rather, the methodology of the studies was generally poor, rendering the data and conclusions invalid. Poor methodology was a problem of much the psychiatric research of the period.

You didn't train with Stanislav Grof. He was the leader of said research. Certainly early LSD research had some problems, and was inconclusive, but his methods were proven and very successful. This is why this area of research is making a comeback. I understand why people want to suppress it -- they fear it will cut into their slice of the pie. --Thoric 19:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(I should add that part of the reason that so much research is considered bad probably has something to do with mental health research returning to the empirical model in the latter part of the twentieth century. After mental health rejected the Freudian viewpoint--though holdouts remain--the empirical models required much more rigorous data. Many mental health professionals disagreed with the shift. However, the facts are patients are now being effectively treated.)

As to my agenda, it is simple: stop bad science from being perpetrated by the ignorant and self-serving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.94.77 (talk • contribs) .

Self-serving? How so? To be self-serving there has to be a beneficial motivation. I can certainly point out the motivation of the indeed self-serving government bodies serving the interests of the pharmaceutical conglomerates -- profit motivated of course. LSD therapy could provide a cure without need for long-term or life-long treatment. This doesn't do much for the bottom line of the pharmaceutical industry who profits far more from prescribing medications that need to be taken daily, and continuing to produce newer and "better" drugs to try if you don't like the one you're currently taking. It is you who are ignorant to think otherwise. --Thoric 22:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thoric, talk about ignorant--you do not even understand the term self-serving. Look it up or, better yet, have someone explain it to you--there does not have to be a beneficial motivation. You also confuse the arguments. I am only saying that there is no good research and, as a result, the claims made are dubious.

You are referring to individual self-serving for the definition, but self-serving corporations serve only the interest of corporations -- to make a buck. Regardless, self-serving always involves a benefit to the "self". --Thoric 19:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You didn't debunk one section after ten minutes; you simply failed to find any information in ten minutes. if you had found research showing that lsd was NOT an analgesic and was NOT effective in treating cluster headaches after ten minutes, then you would have debunked the section in ten minutes; instead, you just didn't spend enough time looking. As thoric says, you simply don't know what you are talking about. --Heah ^talk 15:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I did debunk it. You are the ignorant one. I showed the claims are unsubstantiated in the medical literature. By showing there is no literature in PubMed (the definitive data base for medical research) supporting the claim, the claims are shown to be unsubstantiated. Really, the ignorance you and Thoric display is remarkable. The article makes claims that lack any objective substantiation.

If you want to have a good article, it would note that some folks make these claims, but there have been no objective studies published in any major journals that support these claims.

As I noted above, I can find thousands of crap articles supporting UFOs or Creationism--that does not make UFOs Creationism true or real. Just as with UFOS believers, Creationists and other cultists, you and Thoric want to claim your strong beliefs are science. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.94.77 (talk • contribs) .

UFO believers have very little in the way of true scientific evidence. You won't find any articles on sciencedaily.com supporting UFOs until there is hard evidence to support such claims. Take a look around at reputable sources. Mainstream science magazines are commenting favorably on psychedelic research making a comeback from hard science magazines to psychology magazines. --Thoric 19:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? That's great. Can you cite some specific examples of such research articles? The anonymous poster above doesn't seem to be able to find such citations, but that doesn't matter -- if you can find the citations, and post them here, then that would rather prove that they exist. :) --FOo 20:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course I can, but only minimally at the moment as I'm not at home. Here's a reference to the Psychology Today article, Psychedelics: the second coming, as well as Drugs in rehab. An article in Reason Psychedelic revival: research on forbidden drugs. Omni: LSD psychotherapy. New Scientist: Psychedelic medicine: Mind bending, health giving. I could go on and on, but I have to go spend some time with my family at Christmas, while angry agenda-driven busybodies have nothing better to do than try to hijack articles while people are busy for the holidays. --Thoric 22:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thoric, none of those articles are research articles. Clearly, you don't understand what a research article when it comes to medical science. Medical research, for things such as pain killers, is now done by formal studies. The data and papers that the studies generate are then sent to major journals where other researchers in the field review them for such things as proper designs and statistical validity, in a process known as peer review. The articles that pass this review are then published. After publication, the theories put forth in the articles are discussed. Quite often, failings in the studies are then pointed out by readers. A single study, by the way, is seldom considered sufficient to support a claim such as "LSD is a better analgesic than opiates" or "Cold fusion works."

Looking at the articles to which you cite, all there are mere mentions that some researchers are interested in studying LSD and other psychedelic drugs. That proves nothing except some folks are interested in studying LSD. Nothing more.

But beyond that, Thoric, the articles generally support my contention--that there is no good research supporting therapeutic uses of LSD. They talk about studies that are underway or approved, but the articles cite no new completed studies. Re-read the articles, there are data cited in the articles supporting the use of LSD, either. These studies may eventually generate data that support the therapeutic use of LSD, but the studies may also generate data that LSD is useless or even dangerous.

You also seem to fail to understand that studies are done on thousands of substances for various treatments. Most end in failure. Just because someone is studying LSD as a painkiller or vitamin C as a cure for the common cold does not mean it works. Lots of people advocate things that the data show do not work.

Also, Thoric, you appear to lack a grounding in the history of medicine in general and psychiatry specifically. People have advocated all sorts of ideas in psychiatry--ideas that are now discarded. An example is the schizophrenogenic mother[17]--the idea that a mother who was not properly nurturing was the cause of schizophrenia. This was advocated by many in mental health, as well as frauds such as Bruno Bettelheim. Similarly, you can cite a few psychiatrists and psychologists who claimed that LSD was effect for doing certain things, these claims are by no means definitive. Another example of a theory that enjoyed a vogue but is now discarded in junk heap of mental health (except for a few true believers) is primal scream therapy. (For yet another example of a man whose theories have been discarded as a result better ideas and more data, read about Thomas Szasz).

I never claimed to have trained with Grof, but I know folks who know him and know his work using LSd for psychotherapy. They were not impressed. Further, you can go to most any psychiatry department, and they will agree. (How can I know this? A quick search of PubMed shows his articles on this are rarely cited by other authors.) But, as I noted before, there are many wacky ideas in the realm of science and in mental health, in particular. (I will also hasten to add that his more general psychopharmological work on psychedelics probably is held in far higher regard.)

Finally, Thoric, I am not trying to hijack the article. (I did not even bother to correct the many falsehoods in it, instead limiting myself to discussion page.) I do find it sad that you are so intolerant of and easily offended by someone seeking to make the article more objective. It is rather amazing how you cannot tolerate another POV. Perhaps this sort of intolerance is a terrible sied effect of LSD use. Maybe you should read an article on LSD induced psycopathology. I realize that I am not going shake you and others true believers free from your dogma of LSD as wonder drug. That is why I have not tried to correct this grossly dogmatic article.

The great irony is that I don't view LSD as particularly dangerous. Of course, I don't know if it is safe either. Why? Because have been very few legitimate studies on the drug. Dogmatists such as you, Thoric, and Richard Nixon have may having a rational discussion about it difficult. The acidheads want to treat it as a miracle and right wingers want to treat it as the devil's brew. Me, I just want some good data so an honest decision can be reached.

So you are basically trying to say that all the people who have had their lives changed (for the better) by psychedelic therapies, are simply self-serving eccentric nutjobs whom nobody respects, rather than the few that risk standing up for their beliefs in a very repressive environment? Why are you so very certain that your narrow view of things (which by the way is highly focused on a very limited period in time) is the only correct view? I'll be attending the LSD Symposium in Basel, Switzerland in about three weeks time, and when I return, I am certain I will be able to point you in the direction of quite a few more solid resources, but in the meantime, I find it sad that you are so confident to point out every researcher in this area to be some sort of self-serving crackpot. If psychedelic therapies were really junk science, then they would not require the copious government suppression they have received over the past 40 years -- they would fail on their own merits (or lack thereof). The only intolerance I have, is to the intolerance of others. If you're willing to have a serious conversation about it, I will. If you're just going to say everything I refer to is bunk, then how can we even try to converse about it? --Thoric 04:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, slow down, both of you. No name-calling or persecution complexes are welcome here. We're building an encyclopedia, not having a fight over who's Eternally Right. And nobody needs to be called a "nutjob" or "intolerant". That's just not helping.

Looking for "good data" is exactly what we should be doing here -- with "good" meaning not that it agrees with our preconceptions, but rather that it shows solid research on the subject. Articles in Omni or other "pop" magazines are not research articles. The proceedings of the Basel symposium on the other hand sound like a good source. Let's have more of that! --FOo 05:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So which magazines are "worthy"? What's wrong with New Scientist, and Psychology Today? They do not contain original research, but are only reporting on current (and past) events. --Thoric 05:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thoric, we can't have a conversation about what is good research until you learn how to discern what it is. You can teach yourself about scientific studies and research, or you can enroll in a formal study program. But to have a conversation about the matter, you need to learn about it.

Just because someone claims that a therapy works does not mean it works. It just means that someone is making a claim. As I pointed out people make all sorts of claims, such as efficacy of psychedelic therapy or of primal scream therapy or the validity of Creation Science. Research is needed to test these theories, good research. You, however, apparently have not had training as to what good scientific reseach consists. If you have an interest in the field, why don't you learn about scientific research methods? That way you can offer a more informed opinion.

My objection, which you still have not addressed. Thoric, is the lack of good scientific research for the claims that LSD is an analgesic or anything else. As a result of this lack of research, the claims made in the article are best anecdotal--but the claims are offered as more than anecdotes. As to my doubts of the efficacy of psychedelic therapy, I again cite the lack of good, systematic studies to support this claim. All sorts of claims are made about therapies, by drug companies, by visionaries, and by crackpots. Some claims end up being supported by data, some don't. But until the therapies are tested and the testing checked, it is hard to say whether or not they are effective. That is the problem with the claims about the beneficial effects of LSD. It would be just as bad if the article held out the horror stories about LSD as fact. The anti-LSD hysteria offered up Dragnet and the 1960s' hygiene films are exactly the same thing as the baseless claims of LSD's efficacy. I also would object to these for not lacking a neutral POV.

BTW, Dr. Grof's research is hardly coming back, Thoric. PubMed lists all of two articles from him in the last thirty years.

24.225.94.77: Most older reasearch cannot be easily found in Medline. The reasons are:

• Most if not all pre-1976(?) articles do not have abstracts
• Research has also been published in books
• Not all old journals are indexed in Medline

Finding the relevant references is therefore a bit more complicated than just typing some keywords into Medline. Why don't you try to help finding the references in question instead of wasting your time in flame wars with Thoric. (On an unrelated note: please could you register a username so that you can sign your contributions with ~~~~ and so that we can talk on your user talk page.)

Cacycle Thank you for your response. As to registering, for the moment, I have good reasons not to register, but appreciate your request.

That said, I have to disagree that most older cannot be found on medline. Some can, some can't. (A quick search for Dr. Grof, for example reveals 30 articles--all but two them published in 1973 or before. ) I do agree that the articles will often lack abstracts. There is some truth to your other points. My point, though was not about the dearth of pre-1976 articles in Medline by Grof; rather my point was the opposite--that there was a lack of any new research by Dr. Grof. Clearly, PubMed would have any work in done in the last decade.

I did criticize the quality of much of the older psychiatric research. Older psychiatric studies are notable for their lack of good methodology, particularly when coming from a psychoanalytical perspective as Grof's work does. Quite often, the studies consist entirely of anecdotal material. Consequently, older studies that do not meet comtemporary standards of methodology needs careful scrutiny, particularly when the claims have not been substantiated by others. That is the case at hand.

If an assertion in this entry relies on a source not catalogued by PubMed (or other database), that source still should be cited correctly.

That said, no one has addressed the inaccuracies in the article. The claims of research showing that LSD is a good analgesic are not supported by any cites to good studies. Likewise, there is a lack of evidence for the use in treatment of alcoholism or cluster headaches. Indeed, the claims seem to be made as a result of a misreading of the popular press articles on LSD as a therapeutic agent. As I previously stated these do not support the claims that "LSD is a better analgesic than opiates" or the other claims. Rather, the comtemporary popular articles report that these studies are being done or being contemplated. The articles do not support anything else. If truth is the goal, the article should be cleaned up to reflect this more accurate and neutral POV.

Thank you.24.225.94.77 00:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)24.225.94.77

What good reasons for not registering an account? Your identity would still remain anonymous, but there would be an identity to deal with rather than two or three different IP addresses, and we could communicate over your talk page. It seems a little cowardly to avoid creating an account. As for LSD, there is quite a bit of evidence that it was quite successful at treating quite a wide range of conditions, but sadly no research has been allowed to occur for 40 years (as I've stated a few times). New studies are underway. The problem isn't lack of evidence. The problem is that research cannot be accepted and peer reviewed unless all the legal paperwork is in order, and legal research on humans with psychedelics involves an ocean of red tape. FDA permission and well as DEA permission must be received, and the DEA does not want to give its okay to studies that may show Schedule I drugs in a favorable light. Also note that between 1969 and 1989, pretty much every book and periodical portraying any favorable aspect of a Schedule I drug was suppressed, withdrawn or destroyed from national library archives under order of President Nixon and President Reagan. --Thoric 01:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thoric: Popular or lay-press articles are in no way a solid source. We do have to find the original publications as well as relevant review articles and meta-studies and cite them. Otherwise it is not possible for anybody to check the quality of the studies and the significance of their claims. Cacycle 11:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't using those articles as citations for claims in the LSD article, I was citing them as evidence that psychedelics such as LSD were receiving recent media attention in science magazines. --Thoric 14:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Experimental use of LSD as an analgesic was done by Eric Kast. e.g.: Attenuation of anticipation: a therapeutic use of lysergic acid diethylamide Psychiat. Quart. 1967,41:646-57. http://www.maps.org/w3pb/new/1967/1967_kast_3881_1.pdf I have edited the reference to this work to include the citation, but I confess that I did not re-read the paper, thus the specific claims made by a previous editor of this entry may not be supported. Perhaps someone with interest could read the paper via the provided link and correct.

The research on LSD as a treatment for alcoholism was masterfully reviewed by Mangini: Treatment of alcoholism using psychedelic drugs: a review of the program of research. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1998 Oct-Dec;30(4):381-418. As I recall, she concludes that the research did not definitively prove or disprove the efficacy of lsd in alcoholism before it became difficult to do the research. I added this reference in.

Concerning the idea that no human LSD research has occured in the last 40 years, I offer the following counterexample: Lim HK, Andrenyak D, Francom P, Foltz RL, Jones RT. Quantification of LSD and N-demethyl-LSD in urine by gas chromatography/resonance electron capture ionization mass spectrometry. Anal Chem. 1988 Jul 15;60(14):1420-5. Human volunteers were administered LSD in a lab setting for this paper. Also, LSD psychotherapy was allowed in Switzerland in the last few decades. --MattBagg 18:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing comments for NPOV and LSD and alcoholism

I have reverted several edits from an anonymous user because, although I personally agree with some of the sentiment, the edits stated controversial opinions as fact. For example, saying LSD can "expand the user's perceptions and awareness" implies that the effects are inherently good. Also, the following sentence endorses the promise LSD as a fact when it is an opinion and seems to be combining several nonsequetors in one sentence (e.g., how is potency related to promise?): "Regardless of the legality of LSD, it remains one of the most potent and promising drugs, and is recognized as such in various intellectual circles."

The user also added a theory of flashbacks that I attempted to clarify, hopefully with good results.

I also reverted to a modification of my concluding sentence on LSD and alcoholism that the anonymous user had removed. I had stated that "the efficacy of LSD in treating alcoholism remains an open question" and had given the best citation for this whole topic. I invite those who disagree with this conclusion to read the paper, which is thorough and balanced. In returning the sentence, I clarified the criticisms of past LSD-alcoholism studies and made clear that the openness was the conclusion of Mangini's paper. --MattBagg 20:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Reversion in Sensory/perception section

User:Acitrano made this edit, and I really think the older version is much more... accurate, but that's original research. Then again, so is whatever gets written there, until someone puts something sourced in that section. I'm making a note here because I'd like to call attention to the original research that is that section (whichever version), and also to allow for any trippers who find Acitrano's version better than the version I'm reverting to to say so, and revert me back if you see fit, or fix it up however. I mean, if we're just gonna make shit up, we might as well do it right, right?

Even better, someone find and reference a sourced statement about the sensory/perceptual effects of LSD, and put that in. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate references would be the following:

[http://www.maps.org/w3pb/new/1962/1962_linton_2052_1.pdf Linton & Langs 1962 Subjective reactions to lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD-25) measured by a questionnaire Arch. gen. Psychiat. 6:352-368] This is definitely a good ref for ego alterations

Katz, Waskow, & Olsson 1968 Characterizing the psychological state produced by LSD. J Abnorm Psychol. 73(1):1-14. This is one of the last and best attempts to capture the LSD state with a questionnaire. I'm fairly sure it notes the illusory movement effect, but if not it is described by Oster in:

Oster 1966 Moire patterns and visual hallucinations Psychedelic Rev. 7:33-40

Stoll 1947 Lysergsäure-diäthyl-amid, ein Phantastikum aus der Mutterkorngruppe Schweiz. Arch. Neut. 60:279-280 I can't read this but it may be the earliest publishest report of subjective LSD effects and should possibly be cited based on this? Anyone read Swiss? The link is to the actual paper.

I have added all but this last reference in and moved the ego distortion sentences from the sensory section to the psychological. I also edited the sentence on the role of ego changes in the sacremental use of LSD to make it more speculative, given the lack of a reference I think it appropriate. If someone has a reference to the role of unitive states in the sacremental use of LSD, then I'd be happy to see the sentence reverted. I'm also not certain if the term 'unitive' is clear in this context, but have retained it.

--MattBagg 18:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Chemical Infobox

I wanted to open discussion instead of acting rashly, but what do you guys think of converting that informal table midway through the article into a full chemical infobox and putting it at the top? - CorbinSimpson 07:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Although i do think it should be converted into a full infobox, i'm not sure that it should go in the top- in an article of this length, where chemistry isn't the focal point given LSD's rich history and cultural presence, it seems to make more sense to leave it in the chemistry section. --Heah ^talk 07:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Physical Dangers: Pregnant Women

"Pregnant women are advised not to ingest LSD, since a side effect is that it induces contractions and babies can be born smaller than normal." -- the page cited as the source for this claim does not say anything of the like, but actually makes another, equally absurd claim -> "LSD users may have violent behavior and flashbacks. During pregnancy, use of LSD may lead to birth defects in the baby." -- this rumor ran rampant in the late 80's and early 90's. It is unfounded. I am removing this sentence, since the source does not back up the claim.

Quoth Albert Hofmann:

Some years ago reports appeared in the scientific literature and also in the lay press, alleging that damage to chromosomes or the genetic material had been caused by LSD. These effects, however, have been observed in only a few individual cases. Subsequent comprehensive investigations of a large, statistically significant number of cases, however, showed that there was no connection between chromosome anomalies and LSD medication. The same applies to reports about fetal deformities that had allegedly been produced by LSD. In animal experiments, it is indeed possible to induce fetal deformities through extremely high doses of LSD, which lie well above the doses used in human beings. But under these conditions, even harmless substances produce such damage. Examination of reported individual cases of human fetal deformities reveals, again, no connection between LSD use and such injury. If there had been any such connection, it would long since have attracted attention, for several million people by now have taken LSD.

From LSD – My Problem Child, chapter 2. Be seeing you. Anville 10:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the claim that LSD causes birth defects is certainly unfounded, it may be true that LSD can induce uterine contractions. Erowid and The Good Drug's Guide, two fairly reputable sources of information, both claim that LSD can induce uterine contractions, as do many other websites. There must be some grain of truth here. Also note that there are chemicals structurally very similar to LSD, such as ergotamine tartrate, ergonovine[18], and ergometrine, which are oxytocic. I would not be surprised if LSD could stimulate uterine contractions. I haven't the time to search the medical literature, but if one were to look, I'll bet there would be something there. --Muugokszhiion 05:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"During the testing of LSD-25 in the pharmacological department of Sandoz, whose director at the time was Professor Ernst Rothlin, a strong effect on the uterus was established. It amounted to some 70 percent of the activity of ergobasine. The research report also noted, in passing, that the experimental animals became restless during the narcosis." Again, from My Problem Child, chapter 1. Ergobasine, also known as ergometrine and ergonovine, is the specific uterotonic principle of ergot, which midwives had used in childbirth practices since time immemorial (ibid). Of course, uterine contractions and premature birth are not exactly the same thing as deformed fœtuses. Anville 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, all this sounds a bit like the warnings they put on all the drug advertisements you see on TV: "Do not use LSD if you are pregnant, nursing, or also receiving treatment for schizophrenia. Consult your doctor and favourite rock band before trying LSD. . . ." Anville 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, is that not evidence that LSD can cause uterine contractions in some individuals? I think we can feel free to add the information back into the article once it's properly cited. --Muugokszhiion 17:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have already done so. It's the third paragraph in Physical dangers. Anville 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Archival of Talk

This page was getting much too long. I removed all inactive conversations (roughly those with no activity since September, since this page gets a lot of activity on old conversations). The page is still too long, but I managed to shave about 60K off of it by moving that info to Talk:LSD/Archive01. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 21:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)