Talk:LSD/Archive 5

Move/rename/redirect: I set up links and contacted authors, this is turning into an edit war when I have tried in good faith for it not to be
Twice I have moved LSD off this, twice it has been reverted. I took it to WP:RM before I started, with no response. I fixed up other articles to make the DAB page. I made my objection clear: there are 30 uses of the term LSD and I don't think it should redirect straight to this article. THat can be discussed, sure, but can we actually have the discussion? I also put it at WP: WikiProject Disambiguation. I have put notes on the talk pages of people involved. So I think I have exhibited good faith here and these reversions are just going to become an edit war. Can we please discuss it? I don't care where but it needs to be thrashed out rather than an edit war.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirects should reflect common usage. By far the most frequent usage of the acronym LSD is for the drug; I see nothing on the disambiguation page that even comes close. There is a hat pointing out the disambig page at the top of the article. That's definitely good enough. Graft | talk 00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just looked at the page view stats. In April, "LSD" was accessed 192237 times.  The Dab page was accessed 2737 times.  That means slightly more than 1% of the people who search for "LSD" want anything other than this page -- it may be a bit higher because there are probably people who don't know that they should look for a dab. Looie496 (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

False info
I completely agree. I searched some infos about psihedelic drugs in order to understand the effects of dopamine and other neurotransmiters and I found this "thing". Imagine some people that don't know too much about drugs and LSD (children etc.) reading this article. I usually don't write articles here because I don't think I am capable to write everything as correct as it would be necessary for Wikipedia but it seams that others don't bother with this aspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.79.170 (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not here to 'protect' children from information. The article lays out the facts and cites the sources for that information. If you have sources which suggest LSD is "very dangerous" then be bold, include them in the article. Otherwise you may wish to consider that the reason for there not being a lot of information about how "dangerous" this substance is could be to do with the lack of evidence and not the "bias" of wikipedia. 92.16.122.252 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more. The Internet is for adults, if parents want to censor what their children learn, they should control their children, not attempt to control the rest of the world. If there is supporting evidence to the contrary of what is written in this article, then please update it. (note: scholarly articles and peer-reviewed research is generally preferred over DEA propaganda) XQx (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

half life
I see a half life of three hours indicated, but no source for this information. This conflicts with what I had thought it was, a bit longer. Could someone provide a source? There's lots of info about previously determined halflifes with less sensitive equipment that produced erroneous results, so be carefule about older sources.--24.29.234.88 (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a reference here that indicates a half life of roughly 175 minutes which is ~3 hours (http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?A=ShowDocPartFrame&ID=2224&DocPartID=2063), while this reference states 5 hours to be the half life and 3 hours to be the peak plasma levels (http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?ID=6265), I am going to go with 5 hours. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C)  at 05:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, I simply put 3-5 hours for half-life and provided the two references. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C)  at 05:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

False/Biased information
Is this article ment to be some sort of advartising for LSD consumption? This drug is very dangerous and its use is ilegal in many countries. I would prefer an article talking about the research made on LSD and more info about its bio-chemical effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.79.170 (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if it is as dangerous as you believe, you could go and find some research or evidence to support your claims (rather than just state what your mum told you as an irrefutable fact), and add it to the article your self. This is the power of Wikipedia. XQx (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, given the maturity of this article, it would be better to find sources and then discuss them here before editing the article. Let's also try to avoid snarkiness if we can. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the information given is not either false, nor biased. It is presented in a very factual manner and its references are clear.  Its dangers are also clearly outlined in the "Risks of LSD use" section.  MahJesus (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above two opinions. The article was a candidate for 'Good Article' as well as 'Featured Article'.  It is both "mature" and "factual", with a great set of references.  Given the 'charge' around the topic, any changes, especially wholesale ones, should be talked over on this page first. Jusdafax (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Physical Effect/Dependence Graph Needs to be Removed
This graph is simply wrong. It should be removed. Any thoughts? 24.17.198.232 (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)ssde


 * I mean....it was published in the Lancet, considered one of the most prestigeous medical journals. have any proof to counter it?   John  04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I too have a problem with the graph, and though I think it should stay...perhaps it should have some sort of disclaimer explaining some of the problems with it? Though I quite often cite that article in my discussions with the uneducated, and find it a very useful tool for breaking down the first barrier to truth that "legal = better"...we cannot rely on it as scientific fact because it simply is not.

From my personal experience, and the 2nd hand experiences of a great multitude of my friends and acquintances, I can assure with absolute certainty that many aspects of that graph are incorrect. LSD and Ecstasy for example (taken to mean pure MDMA or otherwise), are not even remotely close in dependance, or potential ill health effects...yet the graph would seem to indicate such.

The reason for this is somewhat obvious on a detailed inspection, yet most people browsing might take that graph to be absolute truth. The graph demonstrates percieved (not measured, not scientific) harm, gathered using a poll (this is probably my biggest gripe with it, a poll is far from conclusive or scientific), of medical psychiatrists (though experts in their field, only limited attention should be paid to their "findings" (or more accurately, untested opinions) concerning addiction potential, while none at all should be paid to any perceptions of physical harm).

Conclusively, though I like this graph for my own pro-drugs (though I wouldn't say biased, I came to this conclusion through neutral assesment of the facts) agenda, I nonetheless feel that the flaws it has shouldn't be left unstated, and to prevent countless people swallowing it as undisputable fact (which I did myself when I first saw it), some sort of disclaimer should be included in the article. Failing that, perhaps the picture should be removed altogether...though I feel this might be a rather extreme step. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.3.228 (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This image is nothing more than a poll of the personal opinions of the questioned psychiatrist. It might be interesting in itself that these psychiatrist's opinions differ so obviously long established facts, but it does not constitute any notability for this article. In my opinion, this scheme does not belong into the article as I have suggested earlier on this talk page. Cacycle (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I find the graph to be correct instill you find evidence to prove the graph wrong i think it should stay up. and no prohibition sites or DEA info does not count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.36.52 (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Creativity and Aesthetics
I added enhancement of creativity and aesthetics as one of the "uses or investigated uses" of LSD. Some comments and clarifications:

1) LSD is not proven to increase creativity.

2) However, many people who use LSD report an enhancement of creative activities and/or aesthetic enjoyment (creating/listening to music, etc). LSD (and other psychedelics) have influenced many artists/philosophers/scientists, including the development of the PC and the internet, furthermore, many people who use psychedelics take them at music/art events. It is possible to add more references on this.

3) Research studies have explored the effects of LSD on creativity and aesthetic appreciation, both during and after the LSD experience.

4) To counter claims that these studies of creativity were all poorly designed, I cite McGlothlin et al (1967, Arch Gen Psychiatry), this was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 70 male graduate students (most had no prior interest in LSD), published in a top-ranked psychiatry journal, 24 volunteers received 1-3 doses of 200ug LSD, and 46 received active placebo (amphetamine or 25ug LSD), tested at 2 weeks and 6 months there was no clear effect on standardized tests of creativity or aesthetic appreciation, however, there was a very strong effect on the volunteers reports of the six months after the experiment: "greater appreciation of music" (62% LSD v. 6.5% control), "greater appreciation of art" (46% v. 2%), "bought more records" (42% v. 8.5%), "spent more time in museums" (50% v. 24%), "attended more musical events" (42% v. 9%) - thus there is a strong indication (not proof) from the McGlothlin 1967 study that LSD can have a long-term effect on enjoyment of beauty.

Proposals:

1) Change current heading from "Creativity enhancement claims" to "Creativity and aesthetics".

2) Edit "Experimental studies have attempted to study LSD and creativity." to "Experimental studies have attempted to examine the effect of LSD on creative activity and aesthetic appreciation. However, most such studies are considered poorly designed or inconclusive by today's standards (cite Sessa 2008). One randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study from 1967 found 'behavioral evidence of greater aesthetic appreciation' six months after one to three doses of 200 micrograms LSD in 24 volunteers compared to 46 volunteers who received amphetamine or very low dose 25 micrograms LSD. (cite McGlothlin 1967)". Tova Hella (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Please provide refs for #2 here so we can take a look at them. I have previously examined these claims in detail, and unless there is some new evidence, they are all anecdotal reports.  Just so you understand where I am coming from, I am a proponent of the idea that psychedelics might help enhance creativity.  However, I try not to let my personal bias interfere with Wikipedia.  With that said, the only thing I see that is valid here is #3.  Number 4 needs a secondary source about the study; We can't rely on your critical opinion of it.  And as I have discussed with you on your talk page, Sessa (2008) states  "This phenomenon was studied in a number of small trials and case studies in the 1960s. Results were inconclusive, and the quality of these studies - by modern research standards - was merely anecdotal."  Please address this.  Don't appeal to your observation about the study.  We need critical commentary from experts.  I think the evidence shows that LSD might help creative people utilize their skills.  Beyond that we can't say very much. Viriditas (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changes the heading title to "Creativity and aesthetics", following the same pattern as "Spirituality". I linked above to a full-text PDF of the McGlothlin 1967 study, you can read for yourself. I will maybe try to add more references. See Psychedelic music, Psychedelic art, and for LSD and computers see the book What the Doormouse Said.Tova Hella (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this isn't an article about spirituality so it shouldn't follow that pattern. The PDF is fine, but we need current sources about the 1967 study.  I own the book, What the Dormouse Said, and I agree that more could be added from it, but again, we are really dealing with anecdotal reports.  The simplest conclusion is not that LSD makes people more creative, but rather, creative people take LSD, and for whatever reason, "think" they are more creative after taking it.  In my own experience, I believe that if one has the requisite knowledge in a particular field (in What the Dormouse Said, engineers were given the drug) it might be possible to obtain new insights after taking LSD, however I do not think this is any different from a peak experience, or meditation, or taking a vacation to relax the mind, or reading a new and stimulating book.  These are all paths pointing to and leading to the same destination.  I still think the section heading should not make an implicit claim that LSD use leads to creativity and aesthetic enhancement as you have now changed it to read.  We need to stick to the facts, and all we have are unknowns.  Because of this, we need to proceed very carefully.  I'm curious, why did you add sexual enhancement to a section on "creativity"? Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed See Also link to Bogle-Chandler case
Two deaths in Australia in 1963, scientists with LSD in their blood, cause of death undetermined but plausible causes have been given, not believed to be a case of LSD overdose. This is discussed on History of LSD. I have no idea how influential this incident has been in Australia, but it doesn't seem to be of enough importance to have a prominent link on the LSD page.Tova Hella (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed details of Pickard/Missile Silo case
Details should be on the William_Leonard_Pickard page, or maybe History of LSD. Here is what I removed:

Pickard was an alleged member of the Brotherhood of Eternal Love group that produced and sold LSD in California during the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is believed he had links to other "cooks" associated with this group — an original source of the drug back in the 1960s — and his arrest may have forced other operations to cease production, leading to the large decline in street availability. The DEA claims that these two individuals were responsible for supplying a third of the LSD in the United States and maybe the world; however, the government-quoted seizure amounts in connection with this case have been seriously questioned.

In November 2003, Pickard was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, and Apperson was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment without parole, after being convicted in Federal Court of running a large scale LSD manufacturing operation out of several clandestine laboratories, including a former missile silo near Wamego, Kansas.

The aerial photo of their "missile silo" doesn't contribute much to a general discussion of LSD. I'm moving it to the Pickard page. Tova Hella (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Owsley Stanley
I'm moving the details about Owsley Stanley to the History of LSD page, but really this probably fits better on his own page. Moved paragraph: The former chemistry student set up a private LSD lab in the mid-Sixties in San Francisco and supplied the LSD consumed at the famous Merry Pranksters parties held by Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters, and other major events such as the Gathering of the tribes in San Francisco in January 1967. He also had close social connections to leading San Francisco bands the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane and Big Brother and The Holding Company, regularly supplied them with his LSD and also worked as their live sound engineer and made many tapes of these groups in concert. Owsley's LSD activities — immortalized by Steely Dan in their song "Kid Charlemagne" — ended with his arrest at the end of 1967, but some other manufacturers probably operated continuously for 30 years or more. Announcing Owsley's first bust in 1966, The San Francisco Chronicle's headline "LSD Millionaire Arrested" inspired the rare Grateful Dead song "Alice D. Millionaire." Tova Hella (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

LSD, spirituality, and the creative process
''An exploration of how LSD influences imagination and the creative process. Based on the results of one of the longest clinical studies of LSD that took place between 1954 and 1962''
 * Tova Hella, can you cite a single modern scientific source that recognizes these studies as anything more than anecdotal? The studies allegedly enhanced creativity among artists, musicians, and writers.  But that doesn't prove anything.  These are creative people.  The way you are supposed to do this, is to screen out people who are creative and then ask the non-creative subjects to paint or draw, play or write music, or compose poetry.  Then, give some of them the drug in a controlled setting.  After they come down, ask them to do the same thing again.  This wasn't done, and I suspect the studies are worthless.  The creativity process cannot even be accurately measured or even defined, so this is a fruitless exercise.  If these studies are notable, you should be able to find some kind of reference to Janiger and the UCLA experiments in the current literature.  From what I can tell, the studies should certainly be mentioned in some way, but claiming that LSD conclusively enhances creativity is careless. It's like saying one has to drink massive quantities of alcohol to write like Hemingway or Kerouac, or use heroin to play music like Coltrane, Evans, or Cobain.  Yes, many drugs can remove inhibitions, but simply taking a drug is not a guarantee that creativity will be enhanced, and I'm not aware of any LSD study that shows a non-creative person who has taken LSD suddenly becoming creative.  The studies intentionally gave LSD to creative people, which defeats the purpose of the experiment. Viriditas (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reorganize
I just made a large edit which moved around several sections, based in part on comments from the last rejection as a good article. The organization still needs a lot of work, in my opinion. I'm aware of the maturity of this article, but my opinion is that it's a big mess. Utility Monster (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Utility Monster, could you give specific things that need improvement?Tova Hella (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be some POV from people who support the use of psychedelic drugs. While I could probably be included in that group, I'd like to see a more balanced article. For one thing, it seems to downplay the darker side of the drug. I'm not talking about the dangers, really, but the scarier uses. I think the discussion of MK-ULTRA should be expanded slightly and moved to a subsection under the uses section titled "Chemical weapon", as that's what the project intended to do. Also, there's little mention of the use as a psychotomimetic, which was an important early use of the drug. I'd like the article to explain why it was believed to be useful for this purpose and why it was later discredited.


 * There's some un-cited material which might be drug lore. I also don't trust Erowid for a lot of things. There are some anecdotal accounts of LSD use mentioned in the article which it might be okay to use Erowid was a reference for, as long as the article specifies them as anecdotal, but for the more technical stuff we should find other references. I'm specifically concerned about the article by "BilZ0r".


 * I may or may not have time to make some of these changes myself. I do think a lot of the recent changes have improved the article. Utility Monster (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Genetic Effects of LSD
The study "Adverse consequences of lysergic acid diethylamide" by Henry David Abraham and Andrew M. Aldridge reference a study by Cohen and Shiloh : COHEN, M. M. & SHILOH, Y. (1977/78) Genetic toxicology of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD-25). Mutation Research, 47, pp, 183-209.

In referencing Cohen's study, Abraham and Aldridge concluded that there is no evidence supporting the idea that LSD causes genetic disorders

Bqian1 (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
This article lists 5-HT5B as one of the receptors affected by recreational doses LSD. However, according to the article on the 5-HT receptor, this receptor "exists only in mice and rats and not in humans or monkeys" (see the very bottom). But talking about "recreational doses" seems to imply that we're talking about how the drug affects humans. Does anyone know if the 5-HT receptor article is correct? Utility Monster (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this works. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14965244?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Fireemblem555 (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Now as a partial agonist, it may actually act as an antagonist. Partial agonists are in most cases used as antagonists because they take up a receptor that would otherwise be activiated by a full agonist.Fireemblem555 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pubmed is a really good place to search for information like this.Fireemblem555 (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"LSD casualties" a real phenomenon or folk legend?
I know that there is a separate section for urban myths about drugs, but I think this question needs to be directly examined or at least acknowledged in this article. It appears that most people believe that LSD can in some circumstances turn normal people into complete basket cases. I believe it is worth mentioning that strangely behaving or autistic people who are famous or consicuous often become the subject of "He went crazy after taking too much LSD..." type stories. Some examples that I can think of are activist Amanda Baggs, late musician Syd Barrett, and an Australian bloke known as "Mad Dog" who is locally famous for barking and swearing at people and vehicles. I believe that Ms Baggs has admitted to a "brief period of LSD abuse" in a blog interview with Donna Williams. I'm sure there are many other unusual people who have been the subject of LSD stories. What are we to make of this?


 * You might be right, but we would need to have at least one reputable source, such as a good magazine article or book, documenting the prevalence of this belief.  (Please remember to sign your talk page messages by typing ~ at the end.)  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * These anecdotes are on par with the "gangsta music turned my son into a killer" stories. Viriditas (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that about 1% of the general population has schizophrenia and "the peak ages of onset are 20–28 years for males and 26–32 years for females". Tova Hella (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * From the Syd Barrett page: 'There has been much speculation concerning Barrett's psychological well-being. Many believe he suffered from schizophrenia. A diagnosis of bipolar disorder (aka manic depression) has also been considered. Barrett's use of psychedelic drugs, especially LSD, during the 1960s is well documented. However, in an article published in 2006, in response to notions that Barrett's issues were the result of such, Gilmour was quoted as saying: "In my opinion, his nervous breakdown would have happened anyway. It was a deep-rooted thing. But I'll say the psychedelic experience might well have acted as a catalyst. Still, I just don't think he could deal with the vision of success and all the things that went with it."' Tova Hella (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Psychosis
I think it's important to highlight the research done in McWilliams, A. Spencer and Tuttle, J. Renee (June, 1973). "Long Term Psychological Effects of LSD" Psychological Bulletin, American Psychological Association Vol 79. No. 6

to quote: "The few well-controlled studies indicate, however, that when the drug was administered to psychologically normal subjects under secure circumstances, lasting adverse reactions did not occur. Thus, the concerns which led to discontinuation of research are unsubstantiated, and the type of controlled research discussed above could be resumed without undue danger to subjects."

The study basically shows that almost all of the studies showing LSD to cause suicidal thoughts and psychosis were performed on subjects with a history of suicide attempts and psychotic behavior. Bqian1 (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty old paper -- it would be nice to have a more recent source to back up such a statement, if possible. Looie496 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

'Recent sources' aren't readily available since clinical tests of drug effects on humans have been largely discontinued. You probably won't find anything as relevant as the papers from the 60's and 70's - Monocause
 * Then you aren't paying attention. LSD studies have been ongoing for some time.  You can start here. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos in the article
Look at their information pages&mdash;apparently this guy took a picture of the first batch of LSD back in 1938, when they had digital cameras and aluminum foil, and then waited 70 years to put it on wikipedia. I hope he's in good health at such an old age. Lokentaren (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the date is intentionally bogus. Take a closer look.  It says "November 16, 1938".  That's the date Hofmann first synthesized LSD.  It was never meant to be the date of the photograph. Viriditas (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

LSD is not a tryptamine
Several editors keep changing the introduction to say LSD is a tryptamine (in fact if you will look LSD contains a phenylethylamine backbone too), LSD is not a typtamine instead it is an ergoline. C6541 (T↔C)  18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

LSD shares a structure with both a tryptamines and a phenethylamines, kid. 08:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

You know, I agree that it cant solely be considered a tryptamine, however, there are structural similarities between tryptamines and lsd. This classification also falls in line with Alexander Shulgin's classification of psycoactives in TiHKaL and as far as out purposes go, lsd is a highly substituted tryptamine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AliasZNR (talk • contribs) 08:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm.... it's clearly a derivative of tryptophan. The double bond next to the chiral hydrogen is clearly where the C=O bond of the amino acid used to be. In fact it's kind of easy to imagine how a plant might easily synthesise ergot-like compounds from tryptophan -- reduce the carbonyl and then eliminate the OH to get your double bond. Heck, it's kind of chilling because it's basically like some enzyme did a an intramolecular Friedel-Crafts acylation with tryptophan. John Riemann Soong (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Pregnancy Category
Previously the infobox said LSD was in Pregnancy Category X in both the US and Australia. Actually, LSD is in Category C in the US (Briggs, Freeman, Yaffe, 2008), and I have corrected this. I can't find any mention that LSD is in Category X in Australia, so I have removed this until someone can provide a citation.Tova Hella (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Isomers
I changed the sentence saying that there are 4 isomers of LSD to say stereoisomers. If the general term isomers were used LSD would have many thousands of isomers, especially structural isomers.Fireemblem555 (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable users section?
The notable users section is a section that basically says famous people have used the drug, yet it fails to mention any of these users... Famous people have used every drug in existence, this section seems pointless unless it names some of the well-known people who have discussed using it like Steve Jobs, James D. Watson, Jimi Hendrix, Ken Kesey, George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Phil Jackson, and others. Wikipediarul e s 2221 04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Topeka, Kansas, 2000
That William Leonard Pickard 2000 bust should be added to the timeline, it was supposed to have caused a 90% reduction in the amount of LSD availiable worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.101.235 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed - it was a very important event. Go ahead and add it, and why not sign up with an account? Your IP address isn't private and reveals exactly where you are. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Timeline
There is an identical copy of the timeline on History of LSD. The history page is the best place for such a long, detailed timeline. I'm removing the timeline from the LSD main page. Tova Hella (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Doctor who did the original, flawed chromosome studies
Here's a little factoid. I'm wondering whether it belongs in this page's Dangers/Genetic section, Jacobson's page, some other page, or nowhere at all.


 * One of the doctors involved in the original research that indicated LSD was dangerous to chromosomes was Cecil Byran Jacobson, later convicted of numerous counts of fraud for selling his own sperm to his patients and other unethical practices. He's part of "Cohen et. al." in this page's Lysergic_acid_diethylamide.

Suggestions? Thundermaker (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The "chromosome damage" panic started in 1967 with a Science article by Maimon M. Cohen, et al. MM Cohen was apparently the main scientist promoting this idea, he went on to became a prominent geneticist. I can't find any MM Cohen articles with Jacobson as a co-author, can you be more specific?
 * I can't find what I was looking at before that made me think Jacobson was on Cohen's team. Cohen was at SUNY from 1965-72 and then moved to Israel, and I can't find anything linking Jacobson to SUNY.  So what I said above is probably wrong.  Jacobson wasn't on the original team, more of a bandwagon-jumper.  Thundermaker (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jacobson reported on birth defects in fetuses and babies of women who had taken LSD in a 1972 article in JAMA. This finding has not been confirmed, and as you mention Jacobson is not trustworthy.


 * It would be worthwhile to discuss more about the Genetic/Birth Defect issue, maybe on the History of LSD page. "Chromosome damage" got an enormous amount of media attention at the height of the LSD "moral panic". It was discussed in the most prominent US scientific and medical journals even though it was clear from the beginning that caffeine, aspirin, etc. gave the same results (raising questions about the integrity of the researchers and journal editors). The factoid about Jacobson could be mentioned in this context. Tova Hella (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion, thanks! Thundermaker (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed image: Possible physical effects
This image exaggerates the common, direct physiological effects of LSD. In most cases the physical effects like increased temperature or heart rate are very mild and would not be considered "clinically significant". Most of the physical effects shown in this image are likely secondary to anxiety or other psychological reactions to the LSD experience. Tova Hella (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
I removed the following:


 * In Hong Kong, Lysergide and derivatives are regulated under Schedule 1 of Hong Kong's Chapter 134 Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, and can be used legally only by health professionals and for university research purposes. The substance can be given by pharmacists under a prescription. Anyone who supplies the substance without prescription can be fined HK$10,000. The maximum penalty for trafficking or illegally manufacturing the substance is a HK$5,000,000 fine and life imprisonment. Possession of the substance for consumption without license from the Department of Health is illegal with a HK$1,000,000 fine and/or seven years' imprisonment.

I think we need a better source for the information than just to specify these law numbers (especially the part about how it can be given by physicians with a prescription since usually laws don't say something is allowed). Then there's the problem that the drug laws of one city seem too specialized to put in an article with such a broad scope; you'd need an article Prohibition of LSD. Wnt (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in "Legal status" section
I added a neutrality check tag to the United States section under "Legal status." It shows a rather blatant bias towards the view that the classification of LSD as Schedule I is irrational and unjust (not that it isn't). It presents a preponderance of evidence supporting that position, makes what seem to be personal comments, and fails to cite the material properly. This should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khinchin's constant (talk • contribs) 02:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Please consider adding more counter-arguments that will balance the section, as an alternative to editing out the seemingly biased use of evidence. Suggest we try to build rather than destroy at this stage. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-added chart from The Lancet
This chart had been removed. I checked the archives and the majority view had been to keep it. We can re-open a discussion here if anyone has some good reasons for removing it. The chart is based on an article in The Lancet possibly the most highly respected medical journal in the world, and it is now clearly noted in the caption that this is based on the opinions of several experts. The chart is very informative in relation to LSD because it shows were LSD lies relative to other drugs in harmfulness according to scientific opinion, which is in contrast to public opinion and therefore highly educational. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * According to, there was only one user who thought the graph should stay in place as-is. One suggested that if it was not removed it should have a disclaimer on it, one requested a refutal without stating an opinion, and the other two supported removal.  I wasn't part of that discussion, so I'll chime in now.  The chart is an attempt to find truth by polling, and it found that the semi-qualified people in the study think that tobacco is much safer (physically) than heroin, almost as safe as LSD.  Constipation vs. cancer?  I'd take the constipation if I had to choose between the two.  The chart belongs on a page about drug opinions, not about drugs themselves.  Thundermaker (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the archived discussions, two explicitly said "it should stay", one with a proviso that is have a disclaimer (the caption now clearly states that these are the opinions of psychiatrists), one implied that it should stay unless there is proof against it. Unfortunately, most of them on both sides signed only with only with IP addresses but it is clear enough that we need a more extensive discussion before we can say that the majority are "against" the graph.  Gregcaletta (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that the chart should be removed because the expert opinions published in a highly reliable source conflict with your own opinions on the matter? Gregcaletta (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that the poll results were published in a reliable source does not make them reliable opinions. The example I gave illustrates how ludicrous it can get.  There are scientists who actually study the physical effects of chemicals -- toxicologists.  That is who we should look to as sources for any "physical harm" claim.  The people surveyed for the chart were not scientists but practitioners, likely to be biased by everything from government rules concerning their practice to their personal clientèle.  I do agree that we should seek more opinions before taking final action, that's some common ground.  I disagree with your counting of the "implied" opinion; John simply asked a question.  Thundermaker (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right that being published in the Lancet does not mean that the opinions are correct, however we also cannot assume that they are unreliable just because they conflict with our own opinions. To respond to your example, constipation in not the biggest risk for heroin users.  Their are two huge risks: diseases transmitted by needle such as AIDS and Hepatitis; and the considerable risk of overdose.  If you compared the life expectancy of a daily smoker to a daily heroin user I think you would find that heroin users would on average die at a younger age.  However, even if I am wrong, it isn't really relevant.  It doesn't matter what my opinion or your opinion is.  This study was not just the opinion of one person, but the average results based on the opinions of 29 registered psychiatrists specialising in drug addictions, along with "a second group of experts with a wider spread of expertise. ... in one of the many areas of addiction, ranging from chemistry, pharmacology, and forensic science, through psychiatry and other medical specialties, including epidemiology, as well as the legal and police services."  So is the most reliable source that we have in order to compare the dangers of LSD to other drugs, and we should therefore assume that it is reliable enough to include (it does explain in the caption the source of the data) until contradictory evidence is supplied from another reliable source.  I would be happy to have the chart removed if you can find some study by a toxicologist which seriously discredits this first study. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Disease and overdose, that's where the bias comes in. Heroin doesn't cause the disease, needle sharing with an infected person does.  Overdose is mostly caused by irregularity in the supply.  Psychiatrists and police are more likely to be dealing with someone who has problems taking care of himself in general, so their view is biased.  Another glaring example is cocaine vs. solvents.  The funny thing is that the survey actually did a pretty good job on the Y-axis, it's just the X-axis that is all screwed up.  But I'm rambling.
 * I will look for a chart of lethal_dose/active_dose ratios. I might have to generate the graphic myself based on referenced numbers from toxicologists.  I think that's how Apartmento2 did it; that graphic is not in the chart's cited PDF.  The original table actually contains three variables -- physical harm, dependence, and "social harms", which is not part of the chart.  Thundermaker (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I found this. It's a faculty web page which might not count as a reliable source itself but it is referenced.  No time to work on it right now so I'm saving the link here.  I think it would make a more accurate chart than the Nutt survey results.  Thundermaker (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the weakest part of the chart is that it is unclear what is meant by "physical harm". It seems that what they mean is physical harm caused by a single dosage (o we could include this in the caption for now).  Also, I assume they are talking about the physical harm caused in reality, rather than amount of harm that would be cause if the drug were administered in an ideal manner.  However, I think even if administered perfectly, the damage cause by a "single dose" of heroin would be more than the damage caused by a single cigarette.  So another problem arises in defining what counts as a "single dosage".  However, this is not just a problem of this chart, but a problem of drug comparisons in general.  The system proposed by the American Scientist article you offered, of comparing "effective dose" do "lethal dose", although not perfect, is more objective than an opinion based poll, so if you would like to create a chart based on this study then I would be grateful and happy for it to to replace this one.  Gregcaletta (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also wonder if it would be good idea to start an article, "Recreational Drug Comparisons", in which such studies could be compiled and compared. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would probably be better to add such drug comparison studies to the psychoactive drug article, rather than start a new article. Don't mind me, I'm just talking to myself, haha.  Gregcaletta (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This chart simply does not add anything of to the encyclopedic value to this article. It is nothing more than a biased poll of selected members of a few selected professions that is not based on verifiable facts about the substances in question. We certainly do not want big lists of who likes or who dislikes certain drugs in our articles, simply because it is more or less irrelevant to the topic. Please see Neutral point of view. Moreover, adding an image of the chart adds undue weight on this particular poll. That this piece of opinion has been published in a respected medical journal is good, but we have many more criteria for inclusion in our articles than that. Cacycle (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read the rest of the discussion. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I made the new chart and added it above the old one. Greg, please review and if you agree that we no longer need the old one, delete it. Thundermaker (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've deleted the old one. It might be clearer if you used an inverse safety ratio (effective dose/lethal dose) so that the more dangerous substances would appear in the top right hand corner, and perhaps label it just as "effective dose/lethal dose" because the term "safety ratio" seems to have been coined by the writer of the article.  Otherwise, the graph is good. Thanks for putting it together.  I might start a page called "List of Recreational Drugs by critical dosages" so that we can compile data from more than one source on effective doses and lethal doses and have them easily available in one place.  Gregcaletta (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In case it helps, I've started the list here on my user page. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here you go:


 * I was thinking of color-coding the drugs in some way but that might count as "original content". Gabler did break them up into 6 general categories though, hmmm. Thundermaker (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think it counts as original content because they are divided into those groups in the cited source. Graph look good, thanks for your work. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Original research, synthesis, and conspiracy theories
Recently added by new editor User:Bogonvermillion   . I have contacted the user on their talk page many times, with no response. The sources do not support the conclusion reached by Bogonvermillion and should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bogonvermillion previously claimed:
 * "In the USA, a super-secretive research program into methods of behaviour-control outside the scope and ethics of legal civilian interaction, lead directly to the drug being introduced (via Ken Kesey, 'founder' of the hippy movement) to the burgeoning youth culture in the Western world) during the 1960s."
 * Problems with this passage are as follows:
 * MKULTRA is briefly covered in the History section (more detail in History of LSD). It is questionable whether it is important enough to discuss in the lead section of this article, however, it is possible that the lead could be modified to discuss more of its history.
 * Claiming that MKULTRA "led directly to the drug being introduced" to the youth culture is based on a misreading of Josh Clark's article on howstuffworks.com, where he writes: "Ken Kesey, author of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," and arguably the founder of the hippie movement of the 1960s, was a willing participant in a separate, legitimate MKULTRA LSD experiment [source: Davenport-Hines]. Kesey brought his experience with acid to his friends, and by extension, whole generations of American youth were introduced to LSD." Combine this with what Bogonvermillion wrote, and you start to see the problem.  Based on the misuse of sources, a historical anomaly is introduced, confusing the testing at Ft. Detrick and the surreptitious administration of LSD with a separate study involving paid volunteers.
 * This passage confuses the relationship between the CIA, Kesey, and the influence on the counterculture, and repeats a popular conspiracy theory linking the three often found in fringe sources (i.e. "Timothy Leary was a CIA agent"). Clark's contention that Kesey helped popularize LSD is true.  The claim that Kesey participated as a paid volunteer during a drug study at the Menlo Park Veterans Hospital is also true; He received $20 for each session. But LSD had been used for psychiatric purposes since 1947, and more regularly after 1954, and experimentation with drugs during this era had already been going on for some time in the beat generation movement preceding the hippies.  History_of_LSD shows how popular LSD already was in the 1950s and how far it had reached into the public imagination.  The genie was already out of the bottle by this point, with or without the CIA.
 * Bogonvermillion wants us to believe that MKULTRA's "behaviour-control outside the scope and ethics of legal civilian interaction, lead directly" to the counterculture of the 1960s. While it is true various commentators have speculated on this idea, (and it is a fascinating idea to consider) asserting it as a fact like Bogonvermillion has is not supported by any known reliable source, not even Clark.  From what I can tell, Bogonvermillion synthesized a report from the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments that supported the claim about surreptitious administration of LSD made by the Church Committee, but at the same time ignored their conclusions about tests that were "conducted under accepted scientific procedures...where health permits, test subjects are voluntary participants in the programs."  Meanwhile, Bogonvermillion associated claims about the surreptitious testing with the voluntary testing undertaken by Kesey.  In other words, Kesey's experiment with LSD was not "outside the scope and ethics of legal civilian interaction", but the surreptitious tests were, and that's exactly what the source that Bogonvermillion quoted said.  Finally, there is no known connection between MKULTRA and LSD that "lead directly to the drug being introduced" to the counterculture.  Even Clark, the source Bogonvermillion uses to support this claim, does not say this.  Clark only says that Kesey's experience led him to turn on his friends, and speculates that this was an "unintended and unforeseen side effect" of MKULTRA.  Speculation only, like every other source that discusses this topic.  Therefore, the connection between MKULTRA and the counterculture is not directly supported by any source. The fact is, more reliable sources claim the same thing about Alfred Matthew Hubbard, not Kesey, but it's still only speculation.  If Bogonvermillion was familiar with the topic, he would have known this. Viriditas (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Physical effects?
A B C LSD gummy bears are chaseing me. 1 is red, 2 are blue, 3 are fucking on my shoe. A B C LSD drugs are realy not for me...

I suggest that the physical effects should lose the "Some users report a strong metallic taste for the duration of the effects". At best this is a subjective description, more likely it is indicative of phenethylamine substitutes such as DOI or Bromodragonfly. These compounds both have alarming vasoconstricting effects, making them dangerous to take in the manner of LSD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.220.10 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Albert Hofmann reported "taste of metal on the palate", and he was certainly using bona fide LSD. Yes it is a subjective observation, like most of the effects of the drug.  Thundermaker (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Having taken LSD myself some 18 times, I can report that there is indeed a metallic taste present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.218.73 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Huxley's deathbed
This interesting info was added in and then removed. It needs to be properly sourced and wikified. Also maybe moved to another page (Huxley's bio?).


 * This is a link to the letter Aldous Huxley's wife wrote after Huxley passed. She gave him LSD multiple times, with his permission and with doctors present, while on his deathbed. http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/03/most-beautiful-death.html
 * It was expected that when Huxley was going to die it would be painful and almost violent. However, he simply passed away without any violent convulsions or even painful gasps for air.

I'm leaving it here because I'm short on time today. Thundermaker (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Many notable individuals..."
Well, who are these notable individuals? A small list would be nice. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That paragraph used to link to List_of_people_who_have_taken_psychedelic_drugs, which was deleted over BLP issues. The reference names only 6.  Thundermaker (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How much history belongs in the intro?
Recent addition expanded the intro to include the CIA-related part of the drug's history "because it's important". That makes the history portion of the intro pretty long-winded, I think. Especially considering there's a history section as well as a separate history article. What do others think? Thundermaker (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed these CIA conspiracy speculations from the intro because of WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV issues. Cacycle (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
There is no way that the pictured blotters (the ones containing the Cheshire Cat) are real, it's very easy to tell it's regular card. Regular card will not absorb LSD well enough to be practical. I believe they should be deleted, and if need be I have some of my own pictures of actual blotter I'm willing to post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricWizard 0 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like blotter to me, especially at 2560x1920 resolution. Nothing against you posting yours though.  Thundermaker (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Look in the second picture, at least most of them aren't real (and I still stand by what I said before). Do you have experience with actual blotter? (please don't regard that as an attack or anything, I'm just sure it's fake.) ElectricWizard 0 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I live in the US, can't answer your direct question in public. Taking a second look at the 4th picture, with the tinfoil background, it appears to be a mixture of printed perforated blotter (probably real) and cut cardboard (probably fake).  Yeah I see your point now.  Thundermaker (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, there's no law against blotting paper. I shall post my picture when I have the authority. ElectricWizard 0 (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Baba? Opposition within the counterculture?
Somebody recently added text to this sentence (shown in bold):


 * LSD became central to the counterculture of the 1960s, although some members of the counterculture, such as Meher Baba, opposed the use of LSD.

Meher Baba's last visit to the USA was in 1958. He spent the 1960s secluded, although he did make anti-LSD statements during that time. He's not what I'd call a representative of "the counterculture of the 1960s". And the cited ref doesn't support any of the new text, from what I can see. Thundermaker (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Melting point
The melting point is currently listed at 80 deg C, but that contradicts the value listed at  (198 def C). Can anyone verify this figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.14.146 (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * According to, the melting point of the "free base solid" is 87-92 °C while the melting point of "lysergic acid diethylamide tartrate with two molecules of methanol of crystallization" is about 200 °C. So it's a free base vs. salt discrepancy.  Thundermaker (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Euphoria?
I notice that nowhere in the article is there any mention of the powerful pleasure sensations which are, to the best of my knowledge, commonly experienced during LSD use. I would not venture to add them in myself as I have no idea how they should be described scientifically (they are commonly referred to as 'body highs' and I suspect that 'euphoria' may be the technical term of choice but I'm not sure).

I realise that there has been some concern on this talk page about the possibility of LSD users editing the article in such a way as to subjectively advocate the drug. I do not wish to see LSD promoted here as fun, or as a good idea, but I feel that direct pleasure sensations (as opposed to more complex psychological effects which are amply covered) deserve a mention, in a purely encyclopedic style, as I believe they are a major factor in LSD use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.77.220 (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Stoll
First, an external link to the French Wikipedia should probably be in the External links section. I'm assuming that the reason it was inserted is we don't have an Arthur Stoll page here on English Wikipedia (maybe we should).

Second, he didn't synthesize LSD. He was Albert Hofmann's boss, and he synthesized ergotamine, from which Hofmann synthesized LSD. This info is from Hofmann's book. Does Stoll belong in the lead? Maybe, but he probably shouldn't be mentioned ahead of Hofmann. Other opinions? Thundermaker (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

LD50
What is the LD50 of LSD? --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

no mention of consciousness expansion?
why no mention of using lsd to expand consciousness? not even in the history section.. whats the point of even naming leary and huxley if your just going to say they advocated and not explain why they were advocating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.203.141 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the appropriate context, such as "Sensory and perception".  The problem you describe has more to do with the definition of "consciousness" than with LSD. What do you mean when you say consciousness expansion?  It seems to me, if we are going to speak of such terms, we are in the realm of entheogens, a topic better suited to answering your question.  And just to correct you, Huxley did not advocate it for general public usage, only Leary did, however if you pinned Leary down on this (listen to his interviews) he often backtracked on this, claiming it wasn't for everyone.  This is why Leary is generally perceived as being irresponsible. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

by concioussness expansion huxley and leary meant that psychedelics "open the doors of perception". in other words, they deregulate the seritonin system and allow you to experience the world as it actually is, before having most of it screened out by your central nervous system. psychedelics also open your unconcious mind allowing you to experience material inside yourself you previously didnt have access to. this is related to, but not the same thing as entheogenic use. i think conciousness expansion should be included under potential use, as these chemicles can definantly widen your perception of reality, but we should make it clear that the term does not mean that they make you smarter. some people seem to think thats what it means, and i can understand the confusion there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.203.141 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Antidotes
There is a suggestion that anti-histamines might work as an anti-dote as a placebo. H1 anti-histamines are sedative, which are often given by paramedics to treat accute LSD influence. Ninahexan (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In the early 1970's I observed over 1000 person/trips. (Only one case of drug induced psychosis was seen, which agrees with the article.) The standard treatment for 'bad trips' was 2 tablets of Methaqualone HCl which, while not aborting the trip, never failed to abort the bad feelings within ten minutes on an empty stomach. I can find no reference to this anywhere, perhaps because Methaqualone is virtually unavailable now. Knowing that this antidote was available, it was used in about 1 in 20 person/trips. Can anyone verify this and/or find references? {Pawprint52 (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

LSD toxicity
The definition of toxicity you are using is related to the lethal dose. It would be very interesting to know more about neurotoxicity and about the toxicity of LSD with respect to a specific sort of tissue. Otherwise, in my opinion this article is biased and I would like to have it written in a different way. You should underline that the "lack" of toxicity is analyzed with respect to other drugs and you don't consider the toxicity for specific tissues. The fact that LSD can produce irreversible neurological damage is for example not included in your definition of toxicity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.92.3.156 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have switched the wiki-link on "toxicity relative to dose" from Therapeutic Index to Therapeutic Window, while therapeutic index is specific to lethal dose, therapeutic window refers more generally to the range between the dose giving the desired effect (effective dose) and the dose that gives more adverse effects than desired effects. Here, the desired effects would be the psychedelic mental effects and the adverse effects would be medical emergencies like temporary coma seen in people who have accidentally injested thousands of doses of LSD. I added a references to a medical journal review on LSD, with a URL link to the full-text PDF (Passie et al. 2008). Also I added, "although adverse psychiatric reactions such as anxiety or delusions are possible even at low doses". Tova Hella (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have facts that LSD causes irreversible neurological damage, then please share them. I think a lot of people would be interested in your sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.40.95 (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.161.88.51, 11 April 2011
in section '=== Forms ==="

"lightweight (as low as 4.7 mg/tab),"

milligram should be microgram here

please change

4.7 mg/tab

to

4.7 µg/tab

82.161.88.51 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: isn't it impossible for the tab to weigh less than one of its components? The same sentence says the dosage of LSD is 12–85 µg/tab at the lowest—over 7 µg heavier than the weight you are suggesting for the entire tab. — Bility (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right of course, I oversaw that the mg/tab in this case was the weight of the entire tab versus the contained dosage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.88.51 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"LSD is non-addictive and non-toxic"
Whoever it is who keeps writing that, can you please stop. Saying something is non-toxic is just stupid since everything is toxic at the right dose. And yes, we know it's non-addictive but it's a psychedelic so that's obvious. If you really need to say that put something in later on in the article. The whole sentence stinks of psychonaut bias anyway and is certainly not appropriate for the first paragraph of a neutral article. JackTheHouse (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't add the text originally, but I did restore it a couple of times after it was removed with no explanation. Yes everything is toxic at high enough doses, including O2 and H2O, but at normal recreational doses the toxicity of LSD is insignificant.
 * You concede the non-addictive part is completely true, but say it doesn't belong in the lead. (Please correct if I'm misrepresenting your position.) I think that's an especially important fact because a lot of people consider LSD a "hard drug", and most other drugs in that category are highly addictive.  So IMHO that fact about LSD is notable because it distinguishes the drug from others.  Thundermaker (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is reasonable and important to emphasize that LSD is not addictive, but it is wrong to say that LSD is non-toxic. The fact that large multiples of the recreational dose are required to damage the body doesn't make something non-toxic, especially given that the recreational dose is so small. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How can we call a substance that no human being has ever overdosed on as toxic? Acetaminophen is far, far more poisonous than LSD. Should we stalk that page and delete all attempts to refer to it as not toxic?98.95.164.190 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "non-toxic" is fuzzy and doesn't have much value.

Yeah it is a toxic drug, alright. But to actually "overdose" on lsd and die. You would have to take 50mg/kg. And dose's are measured in micrograms. So unless you have a water bottle full of lsd, and drink that. Then you cant take a toxic amount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.112.152 (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm confused. I have been told that all drugs, including LSD, are highly addictive. You may be correct that LSD is not addictive but where is the source? Plus, should we put a little mini-article on the dispute between whether LSD is addictive or not? Because I know for a fact that where I live they teach all our kids that LSD is addictive and all the parents seem to believe it too. If this misinformation happens where I live, it may happen else where too (plus I can prove it, I have seen articles on the supposed "addictive" qualities of LSD; that you, in turn, are saying do not exist) Thanks and have a nice day. Onlinecountess (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Addictive" is a colloquial term that usually means that one can become physiologically dependent on it. Not only are not "all" drugs addictive, most drugs are not addictive.


 * One source is mentioned later in the article, see "For example, LSD, which is widely abused, does not appear to be addictive. Animals will not self-administer hallucinogens, suggesting that they are not rewarding".  See also the chart images we recently debated, [[File:Drug_danger_and_dependence.png]] and [[File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg]]  Can you post your sources too?  Even if they don't meet WP:RS criteria, they still could be used in articles about deceptive anti-drug programs such as D.A.R.E..

Yes, I would gladly cite my sources and help to contribute to this article on LSD. I will post them here (is that correct?) once I have sorted through all my information and compiled my facts. I will present to you what I have been told. Glad to help! Bye! Onlinecountess (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't think of a way to word LSD's mild toxicity in a way that flows nicely in the lead while still being lexically correct. So is dropping "non-toxic" and keeping "non-addictive" a reasonable summary of consensus here?  Thundermaker (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Non-addictive" seems to be an important aspect as can be seen in Onlinecountess' comment. What we mean with "non-toxic" is a wide therapeutic window" or a high therapeutic index, i.e. the "toxic" dose is much higher than the active dose. Cacycle (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is like having to post a source to "prove" the theory of evolution or why alkenes react with strong acids. It's a psychedelic. Psychedelics work through quite different pharmacological pathways and have very low dependence potential. John Riemann Soong (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It is important to note that LSD can not cause brain damage in recreational doses even really high ones. By saying its non-toxic -which is false as everyting is toxic in the right amount- you make the reader suspicious. "LSD is non addictive, doesnt cause brain damage and has very low toxicity" could replace the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.204.113 (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WHICH IMAGE IS FINALLY TRUSTWORTHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.122.48 (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ok so lsd is a non-addictive drug, has no long term affects and is not in realativly "normal" amounts toxic so, if a person uses it on himself, he will suffer no long term affects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC) (talk • contribs) Tareqw


 * You can read the cited references in the article to help inform yourself about the risks and other effects, but Wikipedia cannot provide medical advice in any way. DMacks (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Extremely low toxicity is an important property of LSD and should be mentioned at the top. I'm suggesting: "LSD is non-addictive, is not known to cause brain damage, and has extremely low toxicity relative to dose." Tova Hella (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

LD50
The paragraph on estimated LD50 in this article is utter nonsense, and needs citation. An LD50 of 200ug/kg is pure nonsense as far, far more than this was regularly taken by users in the 60s with absolutely zero deaths. Even the 'as high as 1mg/kg' is complete rubbish, and totally unsubstantiated. Iriswaters 1:20, 8 July 2011


 * If information in an article is unsourced and you are sure it is wrong, you should feel free to remove it. Looie496 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 200 ug/kg would be 10 mg (10,000 ug) for a 50 kg human. I do not think single doses were ever that high, even in the 1960s.  It is more likely that street users were misinformed about the dose they were taking.  On the other hand, Hunter S. Thompson wrote about chewing up a half-sheet (50 doses), decades before he died.  The elephant died after 93 ug/kg, but as the article points out, he was also given other drugs.


 * Erowid's lsd_dose reference says 12,000 ug/kg (12 mg/kg). But the lsd_death reference gives the lower range we have in the article.  Cited to "Haddad L, Winchester J. Clinical Management of Poisoning and Drug Overdose. W.B. Saunders Co. 1990. p 459."  If somebody has that in their library and can verify it contains those numbers, it would make a good secondary source -- preferable to the current tertiary reference.  Thundermaker (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Brain damage claims
(starting a new sub-topic in reply to 178.128.204.113)

There's currently a claim (cited to an old paper, not on the web) later in the article that LSD may "cause signs of organic brain damage". I'm not sure what they mean by "organic brain damage", if it's "damage to an organ, namely the brain", it either contradicts what you're saying, or perhaps it was an old hint that has been proven wrong after further investigation and should be removed.

There's also the phrase "behavioral toxicity" juxtaposed with "chemical toxicity". I take the meaning to be that the drug made somebody do something stupid and they died, and whoever made up the term thinks it should be classified as an overdose even though it wasn't a chemical overdose. I think those terms muddy the waters and should be removed, although the danger of injury or death due to behavioral effects of LSD is notable and should stay. Thundermaker (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)])

It's also funny how there's a paragraph saying there's no evidence for brain damage, but another section says some have lapsed into chronic psychosis. Maybe that's not the same thing, but it sure seems misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.76.177 (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Brain damage refers to physically measured damage. The reference stated that some behavioural tests found some patients performing at a level that could be correlated with people with damage to specific parts of the brain. That is a far cry from suggesting that there was any brain damage, and it should not be mentioned as if it did. Ninahexan (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Citaton 6 incorrect
Citation 6 references Shulgin's book PIKHAL. However, LSD is not even included in that book... LSD is entered in TIHKAL, and checking that, there is no mention of LSD being bitter, or its taste at all in the entry. It appears that a google search yields anecdotal and forum-based evidence that LSD is bitter in the pure form. Unless a proper citation is provided the statement of LSD being mildly bitter should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.58.158 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is BS
This article has been written and rewritten by people who use LSD and advocate its use. The article opens with the statement that LSD is non-addictive and does not cause brain damage. Imagine what would happen if someone did that on the page for High-Fructose Corn Syrup? This article seriously needs to be labelled as an imbalanced article and needs more scientific research included. A lot of the stuff written here is written in a way to get people to think that LSD is okay to use, safer compared to other drugs, etc. Whether it is or not, I don't think the Wikipedia page is the place for that kind of discussion, and even if it is, it needs to be in an opinion section rather than sprinkled across the entire article. Is there an admin out there who can label this article as biased so that people who are simply doing research on LSD aren't convinced to go out and try it? 98.192.76.96 (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We try to follow the scientific literature. We try to give people information that reflects as accurately as possible the most reliable scientific sources.  Your comment does not seem to show any concern at all about what the actual facts are, only about what their effect on people might be.  The basic Wikipedia philosophy is that if we do our best to give our readers correct information, our readers are intelligent enough to figure out how to use it. Looie496 (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The no brain damage come from the cited paper, .**but** non addictive and rare psychiatric reactions do not. It is not ok to add a citation on somthing it don't say. 14:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.153.84.141 (talk)
 * I can only assume this is a very poorly thought out attempt at trolling. The statement about LSD being non-addictive and not known to cause brain damage is sourced to a reputable scientific article. This is not an opinion, it is not attempting to change people's points of view. It is merely the scientific facts of the matter. This is exactly what a Wikipedia article is for, and it most certainly belongs in the opening paragraphs of the article. If you know of any equally reputable or more reputable sources that provide evidence to the contrary, then add them. Otherwise please do not attempt to impose your point of view on this article. --Laryaghat (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See also cognitive dissonance. causa sui (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was impressed with the balance of this article, and disagree that it is B.S. My P.O.V. I do believe that “58.153.84.141” may have a minor point on the citaton, I found a similar detail in “2 Edit requests”. Which brings up a different point.
 * I am not well educated, sometimes my grammar shows it, and am often uncomfortable here. I do feel that some do not take me seriously, or appreciate what I am trying to say. If I asked about a citation, and got “cognitive dissonance”, I might feel at a disadvantage, to put it mildly, and may well be insulted.
 * Or not. Thanx.Exwheelman5200 (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty figuring out whether you are suggesting that something ought to be changed, or just making a comment. Looie496 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for trying. Sort of a social comment. I'm afraid I got the timeline wrong. I support "14:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 58.153.84.141". Sometimes a credited sentence can go beyond the actual citation, similar to below. And sometimes it's hard to be understood. Again, Thanx.Exwheelman5200 (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Is "Creativity" the right word?
I was surprised at how open and honest this article seems (clearly POV) about a subject with a lot of social “baggage”. I have a couple of thoughts, meant in good faith.

The section “Creativity” seems sort of thin. LSD has had a huge impact on music, movies, television, writing, and at least in the U.S., on society in general. This is not disputed, is it? Is “Creativity” where this should go, or should there be a different section?

The section “Notible individuals” seems awkward to me, and the reference to Steve Jobs (who I admire) almost seems like a plug. Might this roll into “Creativity”, or it’s replacement?

That’s all, thanx.Exwheelman5200 (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "creativity" section is thin. I think that one of the problems is that the concept of creativity is itself difficult to define. But the effect of LSD on creativity is the way it is expressed in the literature with which I am familiar. I think the section could use expansion but it is a significant aspect of the existing research on this drug and needs to be included as such. On the issue of notable people I see how one might view this as a "plug" but the testimonials by noted individuals is important in that it speaks to a potential positive effect which, though anecdotal, is made more significant by the general respect accorded to these 'notable' individuals' opinions. I would hesitate to roll this in to the creativity section because these are anecdotes and not reasearch. The creativity section refers to actual scientific research which has been done. Unfortunately the current climate does not allow for further peer-reviewed scientific research right now.Canticle (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you for understanding. I believe I agree with every word you said.

Clearly Steve is most notable. Can Kary Mullis be “Nobel Prize winner”? I sort of groaned when I saw Huxley, I know he needs to be there, but... In my world he is better known as a shill for acid than an author, and I don’t know how respected he is. Should he be shortened up some? If you want to know about his death, go to his article?

This list will be a tightrope act, but seems important, and could be great. The whole article, actually, maybe it’s time. Thank you for your time, I hope I have been of any use. I have to leave now, maybe later.Exwheelman5200 (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Huxley definitely needs to be there. And I guess how "respected" someone is is a subjective issue, but Huxley is widely respected in psychedelic circles and in literary circles alike. I don't think he is a "shill" for acid, he never made a secret of the fact he was involved with psychedelics and LSD in particular. Also, he was born into a family that had some of the most distinguished members of the British "intellectual elite". In addition to himself becoming such a noted British author, I don't know how he could not be considered a "notable" user of LSD, especially when he so thoroughly involved himself with the psychedelics. jlcoving  ( talk ) 21:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome Exwheel. I think that such lists are difficult especially with such a controversial subject as LSD. But Huxley who was and is respected in literature approached psychedelics from the standpoint of an intellectual. Huxley may not be everyone's favorite but his reputation is secure. Actually I believe he wanted LSD and other psychedelics to be explored by intellectuals and academics. He was critical of Timothy Leary's more open approach. As for the Huxley death issue, the story is so well known because of Laura Huxley's book about it (This Timeless Moment) and is revered in psychedelic circles so removing it would just cause useless argument. Actually I think it would be useful to add more people who may have been influenced by their psychedelic experiences but we must be careful to have documentation. Canticle (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended you. Of course he has to. But I am not sure that he needs more coverage than Steve Jobs. And I meant “shill” to be taken as an advocate. In my world (blue collar U.S.) he is more known for psychedelics than literature. And we may think the line “Also, he was born into a family that had some of the most distinguished members of the British "intellectual elite". is almost an insult. Remember that we still celebrate shooting you guys.

I am very concerned about this list, and think it has to be done very carefully. “Respected” is going to get incredibly subjective very fast. You have “Rock and Roll” musicians coming up, not to mention actors, artists, and so on. And of course various crooks and bad guys.

My thought was to make the actual list rather consise and standard. Name, fame, and a quick discription of viewpoint. There will be plenty of room for elaboration in the sections or articles like “Influence in Music/Art/Literature/Research/Crime/Or Whatever which I would think would start popping up. Thanx.Exwheelman5200 (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How is he getting "more coverage" than Steve Jobs? If you mean his part is longer than Jobs', it's because there is much more of a breadth of public information regarding his LSD use; Jobs had no problem admitting his LSD use, but it's not like he wrote books on psychedelics like Huxley. It's pretty much limited to Jobs statement that it was an important part of his life when it comes to public info available. Also, I think you are taking this as an us vs. them thing. I'm an American just as you are, I've never even been to the UK. I don't see how saying he was born into a family of British intellectual elites is an insult? And your bit about "we still celebrate shooting you guys" -- what does that have to do with anything? Does the American Revolution make British history and British thought less significant somehow even in the current day?


 * I wasn't implying in the slightest that because he was from a family of well-respected intellectuals that he is "better" than other people. It just speaks more to his being a notable user of LSD. Even if he was from a family of ditch diggers, he is still notable by his own making. I agree it's important to vet who goes on the list, but I don't think there are many out there would would say Huxley is not a "notable" individual period, much less notable for LSD and psychedelics.


 * Also, I'm not disrespecting "blue collar US", as you put it, but I think if that's how "blue collar USA" really feels, that they are just unable to look past the use of psychedelics. Huxley is a respected author in literature and a huge thinker in the field. He was a respected figure far before he ever used psychedelics; his most famous work, Brave New World, was composed almost 7 years before he moved to Hollywood, which is where he first used psychedelics. jlcoving  ( talk ) 23:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I did mean that his part was longer, in what I was thinking would be a uniform list. Bla Bla, who did something, thought something. The death story, which I do not dispute, should go in the section “Early Pioneers”, or “Use in Death Therapy”, or somewhere. I do not for a minute mean to diminish his importance, but in my world many know the idea of the doors of perception, but few remember reading Brave New World. So I believe he is known better for L.S.D. than literature by many. Maybe it doesn’t even matter.

I did not mean that you were impling “better”, sorry. My feeling is that I am not impressed by Upper-Class Brits, and I don’t think middle america is, either. I admit a social bias, and do not pretend to be mainstream.

Am I clear on my list idea? That’s where I am coming from, something that can be relativly factual and basic, which most can agree with. The arguements over whether they were right or wrong (you know they are coming) can go somewhere else. Their will be enough problems on whether someone should be on or off, much less right or wrong.

If you think I am offensive, or harming the article, please let me know. I mean well. Thanx.Exwheelman5200 (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry
Some of the information under "Reactivity and degradation" is highly suspect, if not flat out incorrect. Please Learn to correctly number the ring system, the wiki entry does have the IUPAC name. What is being called C5 is in fact C6a and what is being called C8 is in fact C9.

Re Labile Protons: The C6a proton is NOT really chemically labile, b/c someone doesn't know what "alpha" means. The indole N-H is an exchangable proton, surely it has a lower pKa than the proton at C6a (which is allylic and alpha to a heteroatom). pKa of N-H for indole itself: 20.95 (in DMSO as are all of the following). Now I don't have the pKa of trimethylamine (wikipedia says 9.76 but clearly this is for trimethylammonium) but we can ballpark it like this: pKa of MeOPh: 49, pKa of MeSMe: 45, pKa of cyclopentane: 59, and O is more electronegative than N, while S and C are less electronegative than N. Thus (C-H group) pKa of a methine C-H with an adjacent dialkylamino group is very high, something around 47. Taking this together with the fact that the position is allylic (pKa of propene: 44) we might estimate that the C6a proton has a pKa ~ 37. This requires much stronger base than that needed to epimerize at C8 (pKa of C9-H ~ 25). Whoever wrote that the C6a proton is labile alludes to tryptophan, asserting that C6a was previously the alpha carbon in this amino acid and thereby revealing their ignorance. The word "alpha" in the context of alpha amino acid means the amino group is at the carbon alpha to the acid group. Now that this carbon is in the LSD skeleton it is no longer "alpha" to the carboxyl group b/c there is no carboxyl group! [Of course we can still call C6a as alpha to the amino group, as I have done above, but it is very important to understand from context what is being referred to, so I said "alpha to a heteroatom."] Furthermore deprotonation at C6a results in an anion which interacts only with the trisubstituted olefin. The lone pair would NOT be in an orbital conjugated to the indole pi-system b/c the C6a position is NOT of the benzylic type with respect to either ring of the indole. This is true even though the trisubstituted olefin is of the styrenyl type. So the claim that the C6a proton is chemically labile is not reasonable, at least it is not able to be rationalized in the way the article attempts to do so. Possibly it is more labile under acidic conditions, protonation of the amine to give an ammonium may lower the pKa of the adjacent C-H, but LSD and its corresponding ammonium ion are not the same molecule so we are no longer talking about "the pKa of the proton at C6a in LSD." Also, after N-protonation, there would be the matter of relative rates. Does the ammonium dissociate much faster than C-H deprotonation? Probably. Do other processes also compete? Probably and given the complexity of LSD and the electron rich styrene nearby there are probably many side reactions which preclude any meaningful discussion of simple pKa at this position under strongly acidic conditions. http://www.chem.wisc.edu/areas/reich/pkatable/

"The double bond between the 8-position and the aromatic ring, being conjugated with the indole ring, is susceptible to nucleophilic attacks by water or alcohol, especially in the presence of light." This sentence is very poorly written, so much that its veracity difficult to address. If you want to write about "lumi-LSD" please at least make a meaningful differentiation between photochemistry and other processes. Styrenes participate in other types of radical chemistry (ie single electron but still non-photochem), as well as addition of protic nucleophiles across the olefin under acidic conditions. To just put in one very confused sentence isn't helping this article.

PS to whoever wrote the portion of the article that I critiqued: I have seen many confused students who still pass the course, but that is because we grade on a curve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.81.47 (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)