Talk:LSD/Archive 4

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Semi Protect
The semi protect has surpased its date, so may an admin please take it down. Also, the reason for the protect was not very easy to find, would someone redirect me to it?GrandKokla (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Long Terms Effects
It seems like from reading this article that there are no long term effects or that the ones stated are questionable. Is this true? Is this article biased towards LSD use? Could we get a breakdown of effects possibly, such as light user vs heavy user. 68.40.129.202 (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal Status?
The page cites LSD is a schedule 1 drug, but it is a schedule 3 according to the US schedule code found here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/812.html

As seen in this government document: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/listby_sched/sched1.htm    it is in fact Schedule 1.--Bigfootisreal (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorsing?
I Know it sounds weird, but htis article seems like it is endorsing the use of LSD. I think that some sentances should be reworded, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.49.231 (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with endorsing LSD? Have you ever experienced it? If you have not then I suggest you don't post anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.42.146 (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

well if this is a site that is just giving facts about it.it shouldn't be biased by endorsing the drug, regardless if you think it should or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.33.129 (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are many negative effects of acid, such as, it can permanently screw up your eye sight with ghosting effects of lights. This should be first in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.23.25 (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

LSD cannot screw up your eyesight with ghosting effects of lights, any visual effects are purely psychological and therefore completely unrelated to eyesight. Only the actions of an individual could harm eyesight, your "fact" is as ridiculous as saying you can damage eyesight about thinking about hurting your eyes. Ryan1711 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.82.8 (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Psyhcological effect? these "ghosting" effects cannot be produced by psychological effect, the symptoms would be due to a change in neurotransmitter and neural activity in the optic region of the brain due to exposure of the chemical agent. Suggesting that a physical problem of such is psychological after one has consumed a drug which alters the brains hardware, including the visual system is absurd 99.232.142.253 (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)D.B

That's absolutely ridiculous. The ghosting and trails is because you are intoxicated on LSD, not from any other interaction. Experiencing ego death means your brain shut down and you are really dead? Come on. Do some research.206.248.133.121 (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote a study, if you would! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.20.20 (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think that this article is skewed towards endorsing the use of LSD. There is much more space given to counteracting the false claims of anti-drug groups than is given to shooting down the claims of people like Timothy Leary. 75.36.238.94 (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Ryan


 * It doesn't read that way to me, but be bold and edit it. Just make sure your information comes from reliable sources. thx1138 (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I once used LSD often and I don't know where people get this negative crap from. I've never had a flashback of any kind, nor have any of my friends who used to drop quite frequently. LSD is a nontoxic non-addictive soft drug that merely mimics the effects of serotonin for a limited time. I have never seen any evidence that LSD is any more dangerous than cannabis, which means it is less harmful than alcohol. Guess it's just another example of the good 'ol drug taboos. Acid does not "kill brain cells" either. I think this article is very truthful and nonbiased. It's also right that LSD causes illusions, not hallucinations. If you want to know what a real hallucination is, go eat some jimsonweed (at your own risk).--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There was actually a kid at the college where I did my undergrad who jumped off a roof while on acid. I was disappointed by that, because most people don't do that, but it just takes one person (or fewer) to create the myth that acid makes people think they can fly. Personally, I'm with Metalhead94. Where are those flashbacks they promised us? I'm ready! -GTBacchus(talk) 20:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, I think bias exists on all sides of the "Drugs!" argument. I am unassailable in my belief that in an LSD induced spiritual state (though I don't feel that in every LSD "trip" puts one in a spiritual state), an individual is not capable of bias, through my own experience I'm pretty confident this state never lasts. Post-LSD, the petty and biased mind-set starts creeping back in, and therefore (though it pains the petty side of me to say it), LSD users will likely have a pro-drugs bias. I'm hardly contributing this to wikipedia, just something I would like to say, but nonetheless, perhaps this article should be looked over once again.

To improve the article, the debates on the talk page should certainly be more honest. Though I find myself pretionously posting this message (my normal non-typing diction is no more advanced than your average stereotypical failure), I hypocritically recommend "cutting the shit". Everybody here has a viewpoint, why not say it, instead of hiding behind the laws of wikipedia? Most on this page are biased, but opinion is fair by definition. Speak your mind, the truth can do little damage.

Endorsement is a tricky claim. Some might say that having an article about LSD at all constitutes endorsement (I don't). However, I do agree that looking through the article, I got the idea that LSD was "more of a good thing" then a "bad thing."

Of course, different people will take different things from reading the words in the article. The page on heroin came off as negative to me. The article on amphetamine seemed balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.229.134 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who claims this article is an endorsement is obviously trying to institute their own bias against the drug. I would like you to please quote all of the sentences in this article you believe to be an endorsement, and then give one reason why it would be a persuasive argument used to convince somebody to take LSD. Then you can edit it with your own sources, all the while still relaying the most accurate and substantial information about the topic.MahJesus (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any reason to call anyone an "idiot". That's not likely to produce any good effects. Try to distinguish the argument from the person making it, and restrict your comments to the argument, please. We'd like to work in an atmosphere of mutual respect here. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Taken into fair judgment and edited, though I don't necessarily intend to retract the statement.MahJesus (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, alright. Fair enough. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Physical Effects?
It looks like the source (35) just shows an abstract and doesn't indicate any of the information claimed under the physical effects section. Those effects should either be removed, or a better source should be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.232.163 (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Micrograms and Potency
The following statement is no longer valid and was not valid when the article was made neither: "LSD is, by mass, one of the most potent drugs yet discovered. Dosages of LSD are measured in micrograms (µg), or millionths of a gram. By comparison, dosages of almost all other drugs, both recreational and medical, are measured in milligrams (mg), or thousandths of a gram." Apart from not having a source or citation, there are now drugs with far more potency than LSD, namely:


 * Fentanyl which is 1000 times more potent than morphine, a pain killer administrated by a patch at 12 µg/h (micrograms per hour) with a fatal dose of 300µg in an intolerant opioid user. Fentanyl in extremely low doses mixed with other substances is often sold as street heroin due to its potency. Activating dose starting at 10µg in humans.
 * Etorphine which is 3000 times more potent than morphine. Although a pain killer, due to its potency, it is typically used to tranquilize and sedate large mammals such as elephants and rhinos. One drop on a human skin is enough to kill. Activating dose starting at 3.5µg in humans.
 * Carfentanil which is 10,000 times more potent than morphine is also another pain killer with activity starting in humans at 1µg/h making it the most potent drug. Although a pain killer, due to its potency, it is typically used to tranquilize and sedate large mammals such as elephants and rhinos. 1/3 of drop on a human skin is enough to kill. Activating dose starting at 1µg in humans.
 * Etonitazene

LSD activating dose starts at 50µg in humans. Making Carfentanil 50 times more potent than LSD in activating dose comparison. Fentanyl is 5 times more potent than LSD.

Fentanyl was discovered in the 1950's, and its usage in the streets recreationally became apparent in the 1970's. Etorphine was discovered in the 1960's. So it could be argued LSD was one of the most potent drugs for a period of time until the discovery of Fentanyl in the 1950's. Out of the above only Fentanyl is used in humans to treat pain.

There are many more which you are free to find your selves, but I thought I'll add the ones that are morphine related, specially fentanyl which is a typical heroin substitute to keep within the "drug" category e.g. LSD, heroin, morphine, cocaine and so on. So please either remove the sentence "LSD is, by mass, one of the most potent drugs yet discovered....." or rephrase it. And its worth to note there are medicine's far more potent than the LSD, one being the frog poison derived pain killer (which by the way rots/deprives the nerves from staying moist with long term use). So there we go, a medicine and a recreational drug more potent than LSD. --87.194.3.52 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "LSD is, by mass, one of the most potent drugs yet discovered." Cacycle 22:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't read on, this sentence is false: "By comparison, dosages of almost all other drugs, both recreational and medical, are measured in milligrams (mg)"... since there are many other drugs measured measured in units far lower than that of LSD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.117.164 (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Most drugs are measured in milligrams, 4 drugs which are all complex synthetic opioids, isn't enough to justify change, but 'almost all' should bechanges to 'most' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.0.93 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, this is a misleading statement and it does not belong in an otherwise well documented and well researched wiki. There are many drugs that are active in the nano or microgram range. Silverweed 05:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You could do away with this whole worry by adding the word recreational to the sentence 'LSD is, by mass, one of the most potent [recreational] drugs yet discovered.' PS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.26.246 (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"since there are many other drugs measured measured in units far lower than that of LSD." No. Sorry, but no. The Physician's Guide to Psychoactive Drugs clearly says on page 98, under the LSD category, quote "Dosages are minute when compared with virtually all other drugs, and are measured in micrograms rather than milligrams." Again lets point out what should already be clear. The sentence should not be changed. for reason (1)"LSD is, by mass, one of the most potent drugs yet discovered." and (2)""By comparison, dosages of almost all other drugs, both recreational and medical."MahJesus (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this discussion is very stale, you should edit the article if you think it needs to be changed. Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Contributions to science
Crick was alledgedly high when discovered Double Helix, and Kary Mullis was also supposedly High when they discovered PCR. Any other notables? Eedo Bee 15:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Are there sources for this?  ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are, and there are many more notables (with sources), and God knows how many unsourced and unmentioned notables. There's a Mullis' reference in his auto-biography Tip-toeing Through the Mind Field.  --Thoric 18:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... I'm willing to believe this, but you'd definitely need a VERY reliable source before that gets anywhere near the article. --76.16.71.212 (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, maybe a speculative section should be added that if only LSD were compulsory and handed out by society, rather than society trying to repress the freedom of the populace, the human race would have the cure for cancer and warp drive by now!!

Very strange, I was compeltely unaware of this. I was able to locate an article by a man named Alun Rees, "Nobel Prize genius Crick was high on LSD when he discovered the secret of life". I also seem to remember seeing that 1980's movie Life Story, sometimes called Race for the Double Helix, and it having a trippy scene or two now that it comes back to me. Can anyone verify?MahJesus (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Rearrange / Delete some pictures
I don't think we need three pictures of blotter paper, especially since the use of it isn't described until the Forms of LSD section. I would like to see the close-up picture of blotter paper moved down to that section, and the other two [less useful] pictures deleted. The picture of LSD solution could be bumped up to that section, partly because it doesn't quite fit [physically] into the section it's in now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strumphs (talk • contribs) 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thio-LSD
Could you make a drug like LSD except with the oxygen replaced by a sulphur, would it be very short acting the way thiobarbiturates like thiopental are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.0.93 (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * dodooor as I know, nobody has ever synthesized it and its properties are therfore completely unknown. Very interesting idea, it should be relatively easy to synthesize. Cacycle 04:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So would Seleno-LSD.

Synesthsia physical or psycological?
Synesthesia is listed under the heading of Physical Effects, but I think that it would be suited better to psycological. What does anyone else think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.128.6 (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.108.251 (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a gray area. "Smelling" a color, or "seeing" music involves perceived physical sensation.  Technically under the same line of thinking, nausea could be classified as psychological.   --Thoric (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the word "neurological" would be a good way to describe synesthesia. Saying it is either completely physical or completely physiological leads us into the realm of philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by False Ego (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

LSD and I.Q.
Does anyone have the source for the LSD studies showing a 10% increase in linear IQ? Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I find the claim really improbable. I just looked through several (but not all) papers from the Spring Grove researchers and couldn't find a related claim. Richard Yensen, from that group, didn't mention any such finding in his 1994 book chapter 'Perspectives on LSD and psychotherapy' in the 50 Years of LSD book. Gustav Lienert and others not in the Spring Grove group did examine how acute LSD administration affected performance on IQ tests, but that is not relevant to this claim. Lacking a real reference (sorry, Robert Anton Wilson), I have provisionally removed the entire sentence. MattBagg 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read studies where it has shown that LSD at really low doses (like 10µg) increases brain activity and speed of brain functions similar to Alzheimer's medication but i have never heard of a figure of 10% linear IQ increase. Seems possible but somewhat unlikely. I'll look around for a cite for this though. --Bigfootisreal (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it more than doubled my IQ, which was already high ;-). I think what's happening is an improvement in brain functioning and ordering which leads to greater efficiency. What's IQ anyway, other than a measure of efficiency? PS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.26.246 (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

IQ of person is measurable between 60/70 - 130/140 (maybe 40-160 with specialized tests for people with extremely low/high IQ). I wonder what was your IQ before LSD but if it measurably doubled, it could not have been over some 75, which is not too much. I'm sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.13.26 (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

1970 to the present...
This subject on the article states that "much of what has been, and is currently sold as LSD since 2000, is in fact, not LSD", but why exactly is this true? Does anyone have a source they can site for this? If I recall correctly, LSD blotters, the most common form of LSD sold on the street, is almost impossible to adulterate with anything other than pure LSD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.5.15 (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Today much of what is sold as LSD is actually 2%2C5-dimethoxy-4-bromoamphetamine, also known as DOB (the article on DOB features a section on the misrepresentation of DOB as LSD.) DOB is active in doses as low as 1 mg, so active doses can be distributed in the form of blotter. The effects of DOB are generally described as similar to LSD but with a longer onset and duration, and more prominent stimulant properties which can be explained by the fact that DOB is an amphetamine. Whether an actual majority of modern "LSD" is indeed DOB is difficult to determine and I don't know of any sources that quantify what portion of black market "LSD" is actually DOB represented as LSD, but the fact that DOB is commonly misrepresented as LSD is well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.173.228 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is this well documented evidence? The article sighted is merely news and says nothing about the actual availability. Maybe someone could find a citation from the DEA or some study. 71.191.205.66 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The DEA Microgram Bulletin has many references to blotter tabs presumed to be LSD being Research Chemicals when analyzed. Cite that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.64.235 (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy the "much of" either. I have no doubt that DOB is being sold as LSD, but I do doubt that it accounts for more than a small minority of "LSD" sales. I think we should change "much of" to "some of". The 2000 Pickard and Apperson bust may have made a temporary dent in supply, but based on my own, er, original research production has rebounded since then. thx1138 (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical: Important - "government quoted" in this section should be hyphenated because this is an adjective phrase. In parituclar, the current form causes comprehension problems, since it appears that the Government is the subject and "quoted" is a past-tense verb otherwise. 209.60.45.2 (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)MJP 4/30/2008

This is a good source to site. At the supposed LSD blotter near the top of the page the writer at the bottom says that blotters with designer drugs not LSD are common and that LSD on blotter is actually uncommon nowadays. That is best source you could get.

"Over the past five years, there have been numerous reports of blotter paper laced with drugs other than LSD, usually designer tryptamines and phenethylamines. However, use of benzodiazepines (such as alprazolam) for this purpose is unusual. Submissions of blotter paper actually containing LSD are currently uncommon.]"

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/programs/forensicsci/microgram/mg0508/mg0508.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.102.75 (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a hallucinogen?
This article states some effects of LSD use such as: " an experience of radiant colors, objects and surfaces appearing to ripple or "breathe," colored patterns behind the eyes", and then states that LSD is not truly a hallucinogen. Webster defines hallucinogen as a substance which brings about hallucinations when ingested, and defines hallucination as "a perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD)" quoted exactly. So yeah, I really think that going as far to say LSD isn't really a hallucinogen is stretching the definition of the word, considering that colors behind the eyes and surfaces moving around are actually hallucinations. Someone should edit these claims out of the article 69.85.216.191 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Our article is correct, psychedelic drugs do not really let you experience nonexistent objects and persons like the deliriants. Geometric patterns and distortion of senses are clearly not hallucinations. Сасусlе 03:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And yet the article says "LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) is one of the major drugs making up the hallucinogen class of drugs". The OED refers to LSD and mescaline in its citations for "Hallucinogen" - as does Merriam-Webster. Encyclopedia Britannica clearly has LSD and ergot as hallucinogens. But, as you say, their definitions of hallucinations are not like the reported effects of LSD etc. A bit of a mess this definition lark. Myrvin (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Hallucinations are different from illusions. In an illusory experience, a genuine sensation is attributed to an incorrect cause, misinterpreting a coat hanging on a door to be an intruder or thinking there is water on a hot road, due to the heat rising from the road." (from Hallucination)


 * "Hallucinations may also be associated with drug use (particularly hallucinogenic drugs)" (also from Hallucination)Myrvin (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * and
 * "A typical "hallucination" induced by a psychedelic drug is more accurately described as a modification of regular perception, and the subject is usually quite aware of the illusory and personal nature of their perceptions. Deleriants, such as diphenhydramine and atropine, may cause hallucinations in the proper sense." (from Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants) LSD, Mescaline, and Psilocin/Psilocybin are psychedelics.
 * WikiDegausser (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As usual, dictionaries are not a reliable source for factual claims, especially about obscure subjects. "The OED calls LSD an hallucinogen" is not good evidence for the claim that LSD actually produces the sort of results that the OED calls "hallucinations". The OED is a reference work for how words in English are historically used, not for whether those historical uses are actually accurate descriptions of the world. It has an entry for "dragon" too, but that doesn't mean dragons exist. --FOo (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "As usual" is rather strong. The EB says it as well. Many scientific and biochemical definitions would say so too (See the citations in the OED reference). The question is whether or not these sources are wrong about the effects that are caused by LSD. Wikipedia may be on its own here; and, of course, it may be correct. (PS The OED says dragons are mythical) Myrvin (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the confusion probably results from the current class name "hallucinogen" in the scientific literature. However, this somewhat unfortunately chosen term does not mean (or proof) that there actually are real hallucinations similar to those seen in people hallucinating (e.g. caused by deliriants, psychosis, or delirium tremens). Сасусlе 21:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe the problem lies in a too-narrow idea of "hallucination". The Hallucination article has: "A hallucination is a perception in the absence of a stimulus". A blue colour sensation where there is no blue, a moving sensation where there is no movement, and even a weird sound when the sounds are not weird, may come under this definition. The OED (pace FOo) also has "1. The mental condition of being deceived or mistaken, or of entertaining unfounded notions; with a and pl., an idea or belief to which nothing real corresponds; an illusion." Perhaps this part of the article could be altered to say: "LSD typically does not produce hallucinations of objects where there are no such objects as the ......". Myrvin (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

--

I find the argument that LSD isn't really a hallucinogen interesting, but some of the talk sounds here like speculation more suited to a forum rather than proper discussion about Wikipedia article content. The sentence "LSD does typically not produce real hallucinations as the deliriants do." has been tagged as requiring citation since January. So please can somebody find a reliable source to support it. I'm all for challenging people's preconceptions, but not under the auspices of original research. The point needs to be substantiated with a good supporting NPOV reference if it is to remain.

--SallyScot (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all of the major government agencies have LSD slapped into the hallucinogen category with everything else, including the deliriants. But everyone on here should know that they did not take the time to actually differentiate psychedelic and deliriant effects. They knew it would be much easier to label them all hallucinogens, which in itself is a stigma-invoking term. And by reading the DEA's definition of "Hallucinogens", the "average joe" would be led to think the all of the drugs in the category, like LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, etc., would be no different than deliriants like atropine. That is exactly why the drugs should be categorized seperatley, to well illistrate the enormous differences between them, without simply labeling them all "hallucinogens", which, as I said above, suggests the idea that they are all the same kind of drug, when there not. They have radically different pharmacologies and effects. Keep LSD a psychdelic drug, thats exactly what it is. And keep atropine, scopolamine, etc. the deliriants, which also accuratley describes their effects. The term "hallucinogen", as popular as it is, is just to broad a term and can lead to lots of misconceptions and confusions. Want a REAL hallucination? Go eat some jimsonweed, though I don't recommend it.--Metalhead94 (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

This may be true, but there still needs to be a citation. I for one do not know that "all of the major government agencies ... did not take the time to ... differentiate psychedelic and deliriant effects" - and I'm "on here". I also do not see that the term "hallucinogen" is more or less "stigma-invoking" than the terms "deliriant" or "psychedelic". Myrvin (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Why must there be a citation, Its common knowledge that its a psychedelic, and that hallucinogens require that you see things which aren't they're, when LSD just causes your perception to shift what you're looking at into something else. I think it's fine the way it is.-- Filk-tastic (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---

See WP:Burden - "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." --SallyScot (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

JFK + LSD
yes I'm new and stupid at wikipedia, I included a sentence about JFK taking LSD with Mary Pinchot Meyers, wife of CIA agent Cord Meyers,citing as a reference Jim Hougan's book Spooks (also could have cited Steamshovel Press #10). I realize this is tendentious assertion, controversial,still I'm curious to hear the rationale for this deletion.(Also, to sound really, unbelievable, I have a copy of a 1957 little pet pamphlet/book, like Care And Feeding Of Budgies, called Fancy Guppies, in which, starting on page 6,discussing how to make guppies colors brighter, they recommend putting LSD-25 into the aquarium. Not making this up. Where would guppy fanciers get LSD in 1957? It makes you look suspiciously at the guppy fanciers in the pamphlet's photos. I'm dying to reference this under Recreational Use, but I feel certain it would be deleted with a snort, unless I could e-mail the people who deleted my JFK reference a photocopy of this Fancy Guppies booklet...)9eyedeel (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous edits
Looking at recent edits, it seems to me that, for the sake of the occasional minor grammatical change and the odd reversions of others vandalism (which would get picked up by login account users anyway), anonymous edits are generally more trouble than they're worth. This may be a feature of the particular subject matter here, an emotive subject for many, but in any case, I suggest that a request for the article's permanent semi-protection be made. This would prevent all the anonymous nonsense while allowing signed in users to continue to improve the article. Anonymous users could continue to post on this talk page.

We could extend further back with the analysis, to look at earlier edits (e.g. November), but I think it'll just suggest the same thing, anonymous edits do not add enough value to this article to make their trouble worthwhile for the rest of us.

--SallyScot (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary: 21 cases of anonymous IP vandalism in 12 days, compared to (arguably) two edits which added to the article. - An anonymous IP vandalism rate of over 90%.

The article was semi-protected on the 12th December 2007. - Effective for one month.

My feeling is, particularly because of the nature of the subject matter, anonymous IP vandalism will simply start ramping up again not too long after the ban ends.

I've started a related discussion topic on the Wikipedia:Protection_policy talk page

--SallyScot (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus --Lox (t,c) 12:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lysergic acid diethylamide → LSD — This article has been moved recently to its current title without discussion, although the substance is known almost exclusively per its acronym. See also WP:NCA and Talk:DNA. —Eleassar my talk 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support. Reasons explained above. --Eleassar my talk 11:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. This substance is almost universally known by the initialism "LSD", and the common naming convention should override standard chemical naming in this case: DNA is a good example of the same principle being applied. -- The Anome 11:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While I understand the intent, LSD brings users to this page. This is in the same format and manner as other drugs, medications, animals... pretty much most scientific-related articles on Wikipedia. There is no effective difference in moving the page to LSD as that page already redirects here. The end result does not change and thus there is no benefit. VigilancePrime 11:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To understand the benefit see Talk:DNA/Archive 6. --Eleassar my talk 12:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see a benefit in that typing in LSD may well redirect to Lysergic acid diethylamide but it could be confusing to see that name at the top. Why not keep it obvious? David D. (Talk) 12:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support per discussion at talk DNA. There are always exceptions to the rule. This drugs is known universally by the acronym, it makes a lot more sense for it to be at LSD rather than a full chemical name. Wikipedia is not a professional chemistry or pharamcologists society and there is no need to have everything consistent when common sense suggests that all wikipedia's readers will be typing in LSD to find this page. David D. (Talk) 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, as per the principle of least astonishment, if people search for LSD, as they will, then they should go to the page on LSD. We need a disambiguation page for such things as Lysosomal storage diseases, but those will not be any more than a tiny fraction of the total traffic. Tim Vickers 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Too many people are only looking at this in one direction.  There is no reason why this particular "LSD" should receive primary disambiguation over all the others listed at LSD (disambiguation).  The LSD (disambiguation) page should be at LSD, not this article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One very good reason, Gene, if a teenager told you that "I've got LSD", would your first thought really be that the poor thing was suffering from a Lysosomal Storage Disease? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm more concerned with things like editors linking "LSD radix sorts process the integer representations starting from the least significant digit and move towards the most significant digit" and "For more demanding use however, such as driving off-road, or for high performance vehicles, such a state of affairs is undesirable, and the LSD can be employed to deal with it" and "The Bay-class are based on the Royal Schelde Enforcer design, similar to Dutch and Spanish LSDs" or a whole host of other things known as LSD.


 * Oppose. The initials LSD can mean many other things. Better move LSD (disambiguation) to LSD. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Leave the article at Lysergic acid diethylamide (it's proper name), and redirect LSD here. Leave the dab page where it is. --kingboyk (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment that's about a toss-up with me, about as acceptable as my suggestion of moving the disambiguation page to LSD. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I full-heartedly agree, leave the article at Lysergic_acid_diethylamide (as for all drugs with a halfway pronounceable name), keep LSD as a redirect here (because it is by far the most common meaning of this acronym, in accordance with Disambiguation), and keep the link to LSD (disambiguation) on top of this article. There is no reason to change anything! Сасусlе 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support in this case. Mostly I'd agree with the WP:ACRONYM recommendation to spell things out in full, but this is one of those cases where the abbreviation is overwhelmingly more popular than the full name, and overwhelmingly more popular than any alternative use of the term. If links to the redirect outnumber links to the subject by 10:1, it's more straightforward to swap the two around. I don't think maintenance would be an issue, but even if it was, WP is written for readers, not editors, and for a general audience, not specialists. --DeLarge (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support move back to LSD. LSD is the most recognised name for this substance, and this substance is the most common meaning of LSD. Andrewa (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. The scientific meaning of those three letters are important, but I think that a mere "LSD" encapsulates the article much better (not to mention the fact that it is greatly recognized, certainly more so then "lysergic acid diethylamide").

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Leave the article at Lysergic_acid_diethylamide (as for all drugs with a halfway pronounceable name), keep LSD as a redirect here (because it is by far the most common meaning of this acronym, in accordance with Disambiguation), and keep the link to LSD (disambiguation) on top of this article. There is no reason to change anything. Сасусlе 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance issues. Having this article at LSD will result in a number of links to it being links to the wrong article, and maintaining them is relatively difficult, having to check through the What links here and retain all the correct links. Having the disambiguation page at LSD simplifies this maintenance; there are few legitimate links to a disambiguation page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, there is no disambiguation page at LSD its a redirect. Or is this a proposal? What would go on the disambiguation page? David D. (Talk) 20:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just saw your link above so i now see what would go on the disambig page. I was looking through the 'what links here' list for LSD and there over a thousand.  However, after a cursory check, I could not find any that were linking to LSD inadvertently.  Do you have any idea how many need to be corrected?  David D. (Talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's very telling actually, over 1,000 links about psychedelics, drugs and rock music point to LSD, but there are only about 100 direct links to Lysergic acid diethylamide. People link to the page name they expect. Even more reason to move this article to the common usage. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'll be happy to entertain examples from Gene. At this point, due to the sea of correct links to LSD, I'm still not sure what his real concern is. David D. (Talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern is that we do have to wade through thousands of links to see whether it is a problem or not. By having LSD as the disambiguation page, we'd have a much smaller number of links that somebody could go through periodically and disambiguate. As it is, it is almost impossible to find out if any are mis-directed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note also that people looking to do the disambiguation, and clear the lysergic acid diethylamide links from the disambiguation page, would be able to use the easier to remember (not having to worry so much about remembering the spelling) redirect from LSD-25 to accomplish that disambiguation. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that most of the links through LSD refer to the drug, but not all of them do. Here are some which do not: Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * USS Gilligan (DE-508)
 * USS Epping Forest (LSD-4)


 * I don't see any problem with maintenance if this article is moved back to LSD. There's some work to do, yes, and there's an army of volunteers who will, in time, do it. And there are good reasons to think that our time will be well spent. Andrewa (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bicycle day incongruity
It says that he had to ride his bike home because cars were 'unavailable'. But then towards the end of the section it says that he heard a passing automobile. What's the deal with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.136.28 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just speculating here, but maybe automobiles were just more expensive and he couldn't afford one, or maybe it was a truck being used to ship something (surely those are necessary even in war times). --76.16.71.212 (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Effects: Psychosis
Why is it "not encyclopedic" to state that LSD is a psychedelic substance which occasionally causes psychotic behaviour in people who have not taken it? See the revert. --mms (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please use our sister project Wikiquote for aphorisms. Сасусlе 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

LSD being slightly bitter.
I edited out the part about LSD being slightly bitter. I know it is, and I believe it was Albert Hofman who wrote it. The reference it cites in wikipedia however does not mention the taste at all. This should be in here, but a proper reference should be found first. 72.66.238.81 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Put back in, it is in the reference, just not in the part that is accessible online. Сасусlе 14:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to say that I do not believe you, but I do not see it in here. Would you be so kind to provide the page number where it says this?  Thankyou 72.66.254.60 (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to express a philosophy, I'm opposed to removing something from an article that you know is true, simply because it is unreferenced. If you have even the slightest skepticism about something, it's a different story. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Noted, and a good point, but this is a big issue of controversy to some people, and I believe it may be incorrect. If the page was written, I could just look it up and shut up if incorrect.  I think it is fairly easy to just say it is in the text. 72.66.254.60 (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me just point out that in the first entry here you wrote, "I know it is", hence my confusion. (I presume that was you, based on similarity of IP address.) Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes that was me, and that was in March. I have tried to find the elusive quote to no avail.  I do not know what to think, hopefully Calcyle or somebody has a page number handy.  It really is not a huge deal, but I would like to get to the bottom of this. 72.66.254.60 (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am taking it back out again. If it is reverted I will leave it alone, but I cannot find it in this book.  I have conversed with people that say this is not true, through I know that doesnt apply as a source, I would prefer it not say either way. edit:  I see it is locked, nevermind.  This really bothers me, as you all can tell.  72.66.226.239 (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the effective dose of LSD is surely far too small to taste, this seems to unimportant to belong even if true. looie496 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Having taken quite a lot in the sixties, as well as having manufactured it [I served my time] I can assure you all that it IS tasteless, colourless and odourless. You can quote me on that! And why is this whole article so much about America? I see everything about UK illicit manufacture has been removed, while America has a whole large section. I know Wikipedia is American, but if you want to be taken seriously you should be a touch more global in outlook, not so parochial. An encyclopaedia has to be encyclopaedic! Peter Simmons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.26.246 (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * cool if that is really peter simmons 72.66.255.207 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

FA Status?
How in hell is this article not featured anymore? - tbone (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Trazodone
The Dosage section ends "...taking a SSRI such as Prozac or Trazadone will counteract the effects of LSD and aid in sleeping." Trazodone is not an SSRI.

146.94.186.94 (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the "Production" Section
"...could provide 100 million doses, sufficient for supplying the entire illicit demand of the United States."

Could supply the US demand.... for one day? For one year? For a decade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.2.7 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree this sentance needs work, 100 million doses seems like a hell of a lot, surely that can't be a yearly demand? 92.16.122.252 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Current Research References
include link to http://www.researchlsd.blogspot.com/ Whitewhale (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy does not allow links to blogs; they are not considered reliable sources. (In future, please add material to the bottom of a section, not the top, or people will have trouble finding it. Thanks.) looie496 (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation 15 is 404 not found and should be removed.

Also the whole 'current research' paragraph looks suspiciously unverified. Since it adds nothing to the article but 'scientists are trying to prove drugs make you creative' (which sounds pretty unscientific to me), I would recommend that this section be removed if no reliable references, or any at all can be found. --Podnick (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

- I disagree and recommend keeping it. I think the fact that there are on-going human studies with LSD is of considerable interest to an encyclopedia reader. Because both cited organizations have websites that mention the on-going research (and, in one case, posts the protocol), I also don't believe further explicit references are needed. --71.158.243.2 (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Flashbacks and HPPD
The sentences:

HPPD differs from flashbacks in that it is persistent and apparently entirely visual (although mood and anxiety disorders are sometimes diagnosed in the same individuals).

and

Instead, some cases appear to involve only visual symptoms.

are contradictory.

Is HPPD sometimes exclusively visual or always exclusively visual?

Kst447 (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement: "This syndrome can occur in people who have never taken hallucinogenic drugs" is not relevent. 'This syndrome' refers to HPPD. The diagnosis criteria for HPPD requires that the diagnosed have injested hallucinogenic drugs. Non-drug users may experience symptoms that are similar to the ones stated in the HPPD diagnosis criteria, however, they do not have HPPD by defintion. They may have some other disorder such as migraine aura or seizure-like problem. Claiming then that 'this syndrome' (HPPD) can occur in somone who has never taken hallucinogenic drugs is not true. Silligcam (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarify in production
Since the masses involved are so small, concealing and transporting illicit LSD is much easier than smuggling other illegal drugs like cocaine or cannabis in equal dosage quantities.

What does "equal dosage quantities" mean?

Not only is the pharmacology and effects of each of these drugs completely different, therefor rendering this entire statement nonsensical on its own, there is no way to quantify this statement because


 * Cocaine can be adulterated
 * The potency of Marijuana varies widely

Although the statement can basically be read to mean that LSD is so potent that you can move effective doses around with much greater ease than other drugs--which I think was the intention here, the phrasing creates the inherently false impression that these drugs can somehow be taken in certain quantities to "equal" the effects of LSD.

Therefor, I believe this sentence needs to be rewritten or removed despite intentions, as it can be misinterpreted so easily.

Kst447 (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I've removed the "equal dosage quantities" phrasing to resolve. Thanks, --SallyScot (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cluster headache link and Gender Correction to Mangini
In the "Current research" section, the mention of cluster headaches should be linked to the wikipedia page for Cluster headache. Zorca777 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do it yourself, it is a wiki. Cacycle (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to let even registered users edit it right now. Additionally, Maria Mangini, who reviewed the history of LSD as a treatment of alcoholism is erroneously referred to as a 'He' right now.--Psyres2012 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Psychedelic_therapy issue
Can you wiki citizens please take a look at the bottom issue in Talk:Psychedelic therapy?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychedelic_therapy thanx --Psyres2012 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Moden Acid
"...much of what is sold as "LSD" on the streets is actually easier-to-produce drugs such as methamphetamine or stolen veterinary medicines such as PCP."

I've been reading the Microgram bullitan and other sites, and never once seen mention of Meth or PCP being passed off as acid, seeing as the dosing are really different, However the DOx compounds such as DoC are more commonly passed off as Acid Filk-tastic (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone Have opinions? I am go to change and cite it if not. I'll Give it a week. Filk-tastic (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. Cacycle (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I know many people that take LSD and never once has something like methamphetamine been passed off as LSD. True: they are both phenethylamines, but that's it. The dosage, effects, and means of administration are totally different. I've never used methamphetamine but the US television programs seem to think that you have to smoke it. Taking 35 micrograms disolved onto paper isn't going to do a thing. Declan Davis (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who put the original paragraph in, and I said, as I had read in the DEA Microgram Bulletin  and other sources, that much of the "Acid" today is not "LSD" but instead "Research Chemicals like the DO compounds (DOI, DOC, DOB, DOM) or other drugs such as various Tryptamine and Phenethylamine analogues.  Someone else must have changed that to "Methamphetamine" and "PCP" so that it would get erased and no or little mention would be prevalent of this unscrupulous (and dangerous) practice by suppliers.  JohnHistory (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

In fact, a little research would have shown you that "Sernylan" (pharmaceutical Phencyclidine -PCP) was discontinued in the USA in 1979 or thereabouts. Thus, "Pharmaceutical PCP" would not exist today. Come on guys! JohnHistory (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Blotter image
It might just be my browser, but is the blotter image ("Pink Elephants on Parade") throwing off the section template (the area you click "History", "Dosage", etc.) for anyone else? If it's not just my browser can someone fix it, I'm not sure how to do it myself. Thanks.--Astavats (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed Hoffer criticism of Mangini review
I removed the following text from the article because I think it is giving too much prominence to an unpublished, unreviewed and inaccurate criticism of a peer-reviewed publication. In a document published only on the web, Hoffer is criticizing Mangini for 'failing to grasp' the key issue. For those who do not know, Hoffer is one of the people who claimed a 50% success rate in treating alcoholism with LSD. He also claims that he can treat schizophrenia with high dose forms of vitamins B3, B6, and C. Neither of these claims have been replicated by other researchers. So he is not exactly a neutral party in this issue.

Putting Hoffer's quote in the wikientry contributes to the silly view, sadly common on wikipedia, that everyone who is not enthusiastic is a 'critic of psychedelic therapy' (a phrase Hoffer uses below). I suspect that Mangini is actually a supporter but she is also a scientist and her point that the therapy is unproven is, in fact, correct. The quoted criticism by Hoffer is actually only relevant to one group's work and is therefore not entirely to the point. For what it's worth, other researchers such as Leo Hollister also attempted to study the benefits of psychedelic therapy and also didn't see dramatic results.


 * Dr. Abram Hoffer referred to Mangini's paper as "a good review of the literature" but said that, in common with many other scientists, the author has failed to grasp the important point that psychedelic therapy is a therapeutic experience.



To spend so much space criticizing one group's work is misleading since it implies that Mangini doesn't make analogous criticisms and it suggests that anyone who says the therapy is unproven is ignorant of these details. All of that is untrue. Mangini's paper remains the definitive review on psychedelic therapy partly because so much of the discourse is of this kind of low quality, sloppy 'you just don't understand' and 'I need the last word' quality. Wikipedia articles should be better than this. --Psyres2012 (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Flashbacks - fact or fiction
I worry about the stories of some users of LSD experiencing so-called flashbacks. I personally know seven individuals, and many other acquaintances, that have used LSD over the last decade and none of them have ever reported any of these so-called flashbacks. I know that between seven and 15 people in a sample may not be representative, but when the findings are 100% it does carry some weight. I don't for a moment want to suggest that these reports have been fabricated by either the subjects or the scientists, but it does seems strange that whenever I have meet anyone that has taken LSD in the past none of them ever report experiencing these so-called flashbacks.

Declan Davis (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been a controversial question for a long time. This  is a pretty good summary of our current understanding, I think. Looie496 (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Super, smashing, great! I shall read the paper this evening. Cheers. Declan Davis (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read the above article I think I better understand the situation. In many of these clinical trials the subjects were given dosages far higher than anything anyone would want to take by choice. I mean, they were taking 10 to 15 times the acknowledge street dosage. Besides that, many of the subjects were in mental institutions at the time. It's no wonder they went mad. Taking 30 μg at home with friends whilst listening to some nice music is a bit different to taking 500 μg when you're locked in a cell! Declan Davis (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Flashbacks don't really happen. It's like the equivalent of smelling something and remembering a situation in which you smelled that same substance. Nothing more than what would normally happen to remind you of a random situation. --Bigfootisreal (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fiction, part of the misinformation black propaganda. I have probably taken more LSD than most people alive [or dead for that matter] including one episode when I consumed something over 100 times the normal dose [my chemist had made it and I needed to check potency, but got the dose wrong] and have never had a flashback despite tripping for a week. It can alter awareness and perception long term however, which is why so many people who took it in the sixties became aware of the damage to mother Earth and bcecame activist greens. But flashbacks, no, go ask the CIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.10.40 (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Maharaj-ji anecdote
I've added a very brief mention of Richard Alpert's anecdote about LSD having no behavioral effect on his guru Maharaj-ji. I don't see why this anecdote cannot be mentioned (in such a mild form!!!), given that the controversial single-trial experiment on an elephant can be mentioned. If anything, this anecdote should provoke further contemplation of the interplay between psychology and neurochemistry in relation to the effects of LSD!!! InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who removed the item you added. I'm not familiar with everything in this article, in particular not with the elephant thing, so I won't speak for its validity.  In any case, this article gets a lot of vandalism and very dubious edits, and there are several of us who watch it pretty constantly to protect it.  In my opinion, the problem with your edit (besides no source having been provided) is that it is too weak to even provoke contemplation:  the mere fact that Ram Dass said something remarkable is not sufficient reason to think it is likely to be true.  Note that LSD was once a featured article, although it has lost that status—inserting things like your item will pretty much guarantee that it will never regain it.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Many other statements in this article (psychology section) derive from research by Alpert and Leary. Many of those statement are intrinsically subjective and based on personal reports (albeit collected from a few different people). I do not see any fundamental difference between those claims and other statements by Alpert (=Ram Dass). If Alpert claimed he experienced "ego death" (currently featured) is it "likely to be true"? I do find the anecdote quite thought-provoking (especially given that it comes from an authority in LSD research, no matter how non-mainstream he has become following his dismissal from Harvard). The source has been specified exactly, and it is easily accessible! And the formulation I've chosen is extremely cautious and lets every user decide for her/himself. Cheers, InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: The story about the elephant is mentioned in Hofmann's autobiography, among other places, so it is likely to have taken place. However, the ambiguity of death causes and the single-trial nature of the experiment leaves it as an anecdote not much better and not much worse than any other. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PPS: And how about this statement (currently featured just above what I added): "Other sources note one report of a suspected fatal overdose of LSD occurring in November 1975 in Kentucky in which there were indications that ~1/3 of a gram (320 mg or 320,000 µg) had been injected intravenously..." Is it an anecdote or what? What's the criterion separating it from what I added? Kentucky police department vs. Richard Alpert??? Cheers, InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove those things, I will support you. But the way to improve an article with dubious weakly-sourced stuff is not by adding more dubious weakly-sourced stuff. Looie496 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I find all the three anecdotes instructive and thought-provoking. The whole point, I believe, is that anecdotes have a huge value, unless they are sold as Bible truths. There are always areas verified by a large number of trials, and the more subjective/speculative fringes. And I do not see why reasonable doses of the latter cannot be included into Wikipedia articles, provided that they are clearly marked as such. Strictly censoring such inputs will lead to gray consensus-driven repressive representation of human knowledge. Cheers, InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: As an example of stimulating effect of anecdotes, the elephant story can be contrasted with Lilly's observation (well documented and published in peer-reviewed journals, I believe) that large animals (Cetacea) require considerably smaller amounts of LSD per unit weight, and his subsequent speculation on the ability of brain to condense LSD (in The Deep Self). InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Terence McKenna's scepticism
On McKenna's criticism: thanks for adding this information, it's quite valuable to maintain objective style of the article. However, I don't see any reason to expand this remark into exposition of McKenna's philosophical views. Note that McKenna has been opposed to claims that meditation and other forms of spiritual practice can yield effects similar to psychedelics. This is his personal opinion, not shared by many other individuals (McKenna claimed to be unsuccessful with his own meditation practice, unless combined with psychedelics). All these debates are interesting, but they belong to other articles on psychedelics/spiritual traditions/psychological exercise systems, rather than to this article on LSD. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Regarding the short note explaining that McKenna spent several years living in Asian societies, visiting temples, ashrams and retreats in India (as per this permalinked version) - I argue that inclusion of this is appropriate. It gives clear context for said scepticism. In edit summary you have said that you agree in part, but argued that my note "says MUCH more than that". I assume therefore that you take issue with McKenna's quote - "I learned in India that religion [there] is no more than a hustle". You seem to be arguing that this amounts to an exposition of McKenna's philosophical views, and is inappropriate on that basis. I must say this briefest of references is hardly an exposition, but if that was the case then the inclusion of Ram Dass's anecdote in this LSD article could also be understood as little more than thinly disguised propaganda, somewhat reverentially in support of eastern mysticism. You seem to be saying it's not appropriate to refer to McKenna's view (opposed to claims that meditation and other forms of spiritual practice can yield effects similar to psychedelics) while at the same time seeming quite happy (in spite of other editors objections) to include a dubious story in favour (of claims that meditation and other forms of spiritual practice can yield effects similar to psychedelics). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If Dass's tall tale deserves consideration in this article in any way, then it is only with inclusion of appropriate counterpoint.

--SallyScot (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

---

You're completely misunderstanding my position. I do not support or oppose eastern mysticism. Nor do I support or oppose McKenna's promotion of neo-shamanism (and dubious anthropological claims he was backing it up with). I simply found the anecdote noteworthy, and included it as a brief mention in the part of the article describing other single-trial anecdotal information (suspected fatal overdose, inconclusive elephant death).

Note that it is appropriate to describe the story as "anecdotal evidence", not "anecdote", since Alpert claimed to witness the event, rather than was merely relating the story.

I think it is important to include the criticism of Alpert's anecdote, but in a very dry and concise manner (as is the statement of the anecdote itself). You are spending a few sentences on refutation, give a few different personal names, and even a direct quote!!! How many direct quotes do you see in this article??? Should direct quotes from Alpert also be given?

The backgrounds on McKenna and his role in psychedelic movement are given in the article on McKenna. By the way, it was me who added the linking to McKenna article in your comment (which you did not bother to do), because I do consider this information important, it just does not belong to the article on LSD.

So again, please feel welcome to give a clear statement of the criticism, but without any direct quotes or extraneous information (preferably phrased more concisely than it is now). And please be assured my position is quite neutral here. I do not sing Hare Krishna Hare Rama (nor do I see flying saucers whenever I look out my window)... I do support your inclusion of counterpoint, as stated above, but please keep it at the same (understated, concise) level as the description of the story itself. Cheers, InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Regarding Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, nothing extraordinary is claimed!!! The only thing that is claimed is that Alpert (a notable figure in relation to this article) made a certain statement. All the evidence for this (extremely ordinary) claim is provided in the referenced interview. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've completely removed the Maharaj-ji anecdote. It has been previously removed by users Looie496 (19:35, 15 October 2008), Cacycle (12:43, 16 October 2008), TheRingess (16:33, 16 October 2008) and now by myself. That's four editors who have issues with its inclusion; none in support. Please do not revert again without first establishing consensus. --SallyScot (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (.smile.) InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sally. Looie496 (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Abrevation
It might be informing to note in the article that 'LSD-25' stands for 'Lysergic Acid Derivative 25' and not Lysergic Acid Diethylamide. The abrevation 'LSD-25' thus refers to a code name, not to a chemical formula or structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.1.128 (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No it stands for the 25th Lysergic Acid Diethyl-amide Hoffman made. There were other diethyl-amides he was also working on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.10.40 (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There was only one lysergic acid diethylamide in that series. My educated guess is that the D stands for d isusbstituted (i.e. tertiary) amides. Afaik there is no support for the 'Derivative' hypothesis. Cacycle (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Synthetic chemists use all sorts of strange codes for the compounds they make! 'Derivative' (Derivat) sounds plausible: 'Disubstituted' would have been bisubstituiert in 1930s German. But then again, don't ask what happened to Physchim1–Physchim61, they came out as intractable brown tars! Physchim62 (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

uterotonic
"uterotonic" is used in the first paragraph of the "History" section. I don't know what this word means and can't find anything helpful about it on wikipedia. Mayby one of the helpful medical type editors of this article could elucidate. Thanks!Darrell Wheeler (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the very first Google hit gives a definition. Since Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dictionary, the term might not deserve to have an article.  It might be nice to use a less obscure word here, though. looie496 (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

changes
Thought the page needed some grammatical help, hope no one minds. Also got rid of some vandalism. A dullard (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Niacin to end a 'bad trip'
The article currently states: "the physical effect of a skin rash [caused by adminisering niacin] may itself tend to distract the user from feelings of anxiety". This sounds crazy - surely it's much more likely to make the trippee feel like s/he is ill or dying? I can't imagine someone saying to themselves "Oh look, I've gone all red, that's taken my mind right off the crawling existential horror of a drug-induced psychotic episode..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverHarris (talk • contribs) 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New Picture for "forms" section
how does anybody feel about this picture added to the forms section so people can see what a typical LSD form looks like

Physical effects
I am not comfortable with the image of "possible physical effects" as it puts undue weight on most of these effects.

I do not think that most of these effects have been validated against placebo or no treatment conditions. I.e. we do not know if the effects were caused by the drug or just reflect the baseline conditions of the subjects and the response to the (clinical) set of the testing. Also, the hyper-introspective state caused by psychedelics might have greatly exaggerated self-reported effects. This is supported by the high variability and often contradictory and inconsistent nature of these effects. Most importantly, in the current section the size of the effects is not put into context, i.e. do they differ from e.g. watching a captivating movie, taking a walk, etc.

Therefore, I suggest to remove that image and to try to find some better referencing for that section. Cacycle (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cause of Flashbacks/competing models
Psychiatrist Stan Grof who worked with LSD for over 10 years gives the reason for flashbacks as attempts by the human organism to complete an experience that was truncated for some reason. Such reasons could include inappropriate sedation of the LSD experience, or distraction from the emotions encountered during an LSD experience because of the setting. Stan's work is well-known.

In which case it would not be appropriate to call flashbacks a 'disorder'. Obviously, we have two competing models here and mention might be made about this. The standard medical, pharmacological model which views some effects of lSD in terms of 'disorders', and the non-pharmacological psychedelic model of LSD, which does not. There seems to be so much knowledge that has been left out of this article. Can we have some mention of these important distinctions please? Crypton22 (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can point to good sources to back up these statements, then we can certainly consider it. Looie496 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Until I dig out the reference I've got this interesting quote from Albert Hofmann, research chemist and author of LSD: My Problem Child

"If I am the father of LSD, Stan Grof is the godfather. Nobody has contributed as much as Stan for the de-velopment of my problem child." Crypton22 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Frank Olson
Reference 16, i.e., Shane, Scott (2004-09-12). "Son probes strange death of WMD worker He believes agents murdered employee of Army to protect government secrets" seems to be out of place. It does not actually support the claim that Frank Olson suffered blunt trauma to the head, and is just a standard newspaper fluff piece. The article does state that James Starrs examined Frank Olson exhumed body and seems to think there was evidence for homicide. A link to James Starrs actual report would constitute a valid reference. The current citation is nothing but a second degree anecdote, and really constitutes evidence of nothing at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn M. O'Hare (talk • contribs) 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable people who have taken LSD
There once was a list of famous people who took LSD but it was removed because of a lack of citations someone started restoring some of the citations [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lysergic_acid_diethylamide/Archive_2#afd_of_list_of_notable_people_._._. here]. I also know bernard krick (spelling? discovered double helix/DNA structure) and many people in Silicon Valley were users. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Error in "Possible physical effects of LSD" pic.....LSD Decreases Heart Rate?
I'm not sure how accurate this info is in the "Possible physical effects of LSD" pic....LSD is known to be a stimulant and it does stimulate the heart thus leading to a faster heart rate......so why does it say otherwise here? I'm pretty sure it doesn't decrease heart rate, is there any evidence for this? Zachorious (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, physical effects are very unspecific and unreliable and can include increases as well as decreases or no effects in most if not all measured parameters. For that reason I think we should get rid of that image. Cacycle (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Those images seemingly popped up out of nowhere on multiple articles about psychoactives.--Metalhead94 (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)