Talk:LSD/Archive 2

message: This page seems to plagiarize much of http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/dea/product/lsd/lsd-5.htm
for example take the following paragraph from fas.org:
"Only a small amount of ergotamine tartrate is required to produce LSD in large batches. For example, 25 kilograms of ergotamine tartrate can produce 5 or 6 kilograms of pure LSD crystal that, under ideal circumstances, could be processed into 100 million dosage units, more than enough to meet what is believed to be the entire annual U.S. demand for the hallucinogen. LSD manufacturers need only import a small quantity of the substance and, thus, enjoy the advantages of ease of concealment and transport not available to traffickers of other illegal drugs, primarily marijuana and cocaine.
"
and compare to this to the paragraph in this article:
"Only a small amount of ergotamine tartrate is required to produce LSD in large batches. For example, 25 kilograms of ergotamine tartrate can produce 5 or 6 kilograms of pure LSD crystal that, under ideal circumstances, could be processed into 100 million dosage units (at 50 micrograms per dose), more than enough to meet what is believed to be the entire annual U.S. demand for the drug. LSD manufacturers need only create a small quantity of the substance and, thus, enjoy the advantages of ease of concealment and transport not available to traffickers of other illegal drugs, primarily marijuana and cocaine."
AlfredR 16:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright / plagiarism issue 

message: The section on addiction needs a re-write, but it's a bit too extensive for me to just plunk it in without discussion. Here are the points that I think need to be made:
* LSD is not, in a clinical sense, addictive (this is pretty well stated, now)
* Addictive behavior can be attached to any drug or even activity, including LSD
* Lose the whole bit about "anti-drug" and dealing with your "psyche", and instead:
* To quote Human Psychedelic Research: A Historical And Sociological Analysis, an undergraduate thesis by Luke Williams at Cambridge University:
: "psychedelic therapy was predominantly an American phenomena, but another major use of this type of therapy was in Prague. Here, Stanislov Grof used LSD to treat heroin addicts in much the same way"
* In that light, re-write the "anti-drug" bit with a focus on LSD's use in experimental psychotherapy, and specifically in the treatment of heroin addiction.
All things consdiered, most of this article is quite sound, which is why I'm trying to pitch in.
-- Harmil 21:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please elaborate on your objection to the "anti-drug" reference?  It explains the nature of how psychedelic psychotherapy works, basically through exposing the psyche to that which the patient has been suppressing.  Once these underlying issues are exposed and dealt with, the patient no longer needs to seek asylum from them through the use of hard (escapism inducing) drugs such as alcohol and/or heroin.  --Thoric 21:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested re-write 

message: Many experts consider drugs such as LSD to be a sort of anti-drug (encourages users to stop using drugs), as it forces the user to face issues and problems in their psyche in contrast to the hard drugs used for escapism purposes...
:This is a fascinating statement that deserves to be sourced. --Viriditas  | Talk 09:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Found some info: "In 1996, [John Halpern associate director of substance abuse research at Harvard University's McLean Hospital] reviewed almost 100 substance abuse trials involving LSD, psilocybin, DMT and ibogaine, an extract of the African shrub Tabernanthe iboga. Halpern found tentative evidence that the drugs can reduce addicts' cravings during a post-trip "afterglow" lasting for a month or two. Exactly how this happens is something of a mystery. A popular theory is that the benefits stem from the drugs' psychological effects, which include profound insights and cathartic emotions, but Halpern suspects that there may be a biochemical explanation too."  --Viriditas  | Talk 10:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that Humphry Osmond (as well as Timothy Leary) performed research showing that LSD had a high potential for treating alcoholism. --Thoric 06:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: The claim Contrary to common belief, scientific studies could not confirm that LSD can cause lasting psychoses, according to a meta-study' is backed with a link to a Master's Thesis. A peer reviewed publication would be much more convincing. I expect there is one? (Note that a master or PhD thesis whose result have not been published elsewhere sounds highly suspicious in natural sciences. It means: His work was not good enough to be published in a respected journal, but as we are nice guys we awarded his MSc anyway.) Simon A. 16:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the author is quoting a peer reviewed publication, in this instance: Warner, R & Taylor, D (Jan 1994) "Substance Use among the Mentally Ill: Prevalence, reasons for use: Effects on Illness". American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 64(1). --Viriditas  | Talk 11:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another citation request

message: Maybe the wording is a little confusing?  Need more emphasis on the high doses part?  Maybe an example dose?  500ug? 1000ug?  --Thoric 18:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this does confuse me.  Increase in dose certainly increases intensity.  There me be some point where it is so intense that it is impossible to talk about one experience being more intense than another, in the the word loses its meaning, but it still probobly has some effect on the experience.  --Benna 22:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently this dose is high... somewhere around 500ug for the average person (but different for different people) at where the intensity peaks out, but the duration is increased... but it's not like if you take 5000ug that you'd be tripping for 24 hours or more... if so, it was likely on some other substance (STP/DOM).  --Thoric 23:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 500ug sounds too low to me.  I think we should try to find some sources for this to get that nailed down. --Benna 02:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: the list of people has been removed to below pending citations.  yes, its obvious that timothy leary used acid, but we still need to cite that, especially when we are discussing people and illicit drug use.  This was done on the Mescaline (talk page) page and it worked well.  
* Dr. Richard Alpert (later known as Ram Dass)
* Dr. Stanislav Grof Czech researcher
* Dr. Albert Hofmann
* Dr. Timothy Leary
* Dr. John Lilly USA researcher
* Dr. Ralph Metzner
* Dr. Humphry Osmond
* Michael Hollingshead Introduced Tim Leary to LSD
* Mark McCloud The Father of LSD Blotter Acid Art Collecting
* Raphael Labro LSD Expressionist
* Owsley Stanley Famous LSD chemist of the 1960's
* Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
* Ken Kesey, author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
* Psychedelic rock bands associated with LSD use: Grateful Dead, Phish, The Beatles, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, The Mars Volta, Jefferson Airplane, Smashing Pumpkins, Pink Floyd (But only during mid 60's while led by original band leader Syd Barrett. After the inclusion of David Gilmour and the leaving of Syd Barrett in 1968, LSD was no longer a factor), Tool (especially their later works Ænima and Lateralus). --Preceding unsigned comment by Heah
::These notable people and their relationship to LSD are all cited on their respective Wikipedia pages.  Just to be sure, I will personally go through every one of them.  If I don't find a cite, I'll add  next to their name.  Until that time, I am leaving the content in the article.  Fact checking shouldn't take me more than an hour.  --Viriditas 01:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it just occurred to me that these names are part of a "related topics" section, so there's no need to cite sources since the entries are self-explanatory.  If there's a question about the authenticity of one of the entries, by all means bring it up.  Also, you need to keep in mind that many of these people were not engaged in illicit drug use, but experimented with LSD when it was legal. --Viriditas 01:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: International Symposium on the occasion of the 100th Birthday of Albert Hofmann
13 to 15 January 2006, Convention Center Basel, Switzerland
Lectures • Panels • Seminars • Workshops • Concerts • Exhibitions • Parties
On the occasion of the 100th birthday of Dr. Albert Hofmann on 11 January 2006, the Gaia Media Foundation stages an International Symposium on the most widely known and most controversial discovery of this outstanding scientist.
(See www.lsd.info)
Just figured everyone here would be interested :)  I know I am.  Sadly, I'm not sure if I'll be able to go.  It sounds like a once in a lifetime experience.
--Thoric 19:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LSD conference: Albert Hofmann's 100th Birthday 

message: I was surprised to see the unsubstantiated allegation that Tim Leary was supplied by the CIA with large amounts of LSD which he in turn distributed. What's the basis of this claim? I believe this to be an urban legend.
I suspect it might come from the claim that Ronald Hadley Stark was alledgedly a CIA agent. He was a con artist and made this claim in a successful effort to get out of jail in Italy. [Lobster "The Journal of Parapolitics" Summer 1998 issue 35, book review of Acid: the secret history of LSD]. Stark did supply some LSD to the Brotherhood of Eternal Love (BEL) [see US v Sand, Scully, Friedman, Stark, Randall, et al, CR73-306SC, 1973-4 San Francisco] from 1970-1973.  
The Orange County California grand jury did allege in a 1972 indictment [C29725] that Tim Leary conspired with BEL to distribute drugs, but no evidence developed that Leary was directly involved in LSD distriution - he did not act as a conduit from Stark to BEL, for example. Stark delt directly with Michael Randall, the head of BEL's LSD distribution network at that time [see also the October 3, 1973 US Senate Internal Security Subcommitte hearing on Hashish Smuggling and Passport Fraud: The Brotherhood of Eternal Love].
Tim Leary was a very vocal advocate for LSD use but I'm unaware of any convincing evidence that he was a conduit for its distrubution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.36.121.234 (talk • contribs) .
:I've taken the liberty of commenting out the unverified claim you mentioned.  Here is a copy of it, for anyone who's interested.  It's still there, in the middle of the paragraph beginning "Several...", under Origin.
::Dr. Leary was then (allegedly unbeknownst to himself) approached by agents of the CIA, who supplied him with such quantity of purified LSD-25 that he and Dr. Alpert/Ram Dass made available to a much wider portion of the public.
:If anyone wants to verify that, you know what to do. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the basis for claiming the CIA supplied lots of LSD to Leary? 

message: I have reverted several edits from an anonymous user because, although I personally agree with some of the sentiment, the edits stated controversial opinions as fact.  For example, saying LSD can "expand the user's perceptions and awareness" implies that the effects are inherently good.  Also, the following sentence endorses the promise LSD as a fact when it is an opinion and seems to be combining several nonsequetors in one sentence (e.g., how is potency related to promise?): "Regardless of the legality of LSD, it remains one of the most potent and promising drugs, and is recognized as such in various intellectual circles."  
The user also added a theory of flashbacks that I attempted to clarify, hopefully with good results.
I also reverted to a modification of my concluding sentence on LSD and alcoholism that the anonymous user had removed.  I had stated that "the efficacy of LSD in treating alcoholism remains an open question" and had given the best citation for this whole topic.  I invite those who disagree with this conclusion to read the paper, which is thorough and balanced.  In returning the sentence, I clarified the criticisms of past LSD-alcoholism studies and made clear that the openness was the conclusion of Mangini's paper.  --MattBagg 20:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing comments for NPOV and LSD and alcoholism 

message: User:Acitrano made this edit, and I really think the older version is much more... accurate, but that's original research.  Then again, so is whatever gets written there, until someone puts something sourced in that section.  I'm making a note here because I'd like to call attention to the original research that is that section (whichever version), and also to allow for any trippers who find Acitrano's version better than the version I'm reverting to to say so, and revert me back if you see fit, or fix it up however.  I mean, if we're just gonna make shit up, we might as well do it right, right?
Even better, someone find and reference a sourced statement about the sensory/perceptual effects of LSD, and put that in. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion in Sensory/perception section 

message: I wanted to open discussion instead of acting rashly, but what do you guys think of converting that informal table midway through the article into a full chemical infobox and putting it at the top? - CorbinSimpson 07:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although i do think it should be converted into a full infobox, i'm not sure that it should go in the top- in an article of this length, where chemistry isn't the focal point given LSD's rich history and cultural presence, it seems to make more sense to leave it in the chemistry section.  --Heah talk 07:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical Infobox 

message: "Pregnant women are advised not to ingest LSD, since a side effect is that it induces contractions and babies can be born smaller than normal."  -- the page cited as the source for this claim does not say anything of the like, but actually makes another, equally absurd claim -> "LSD users may have violent behavior and flashbacks. During pregnancy, use of LSD may lead to birth defects in the baby."  -- this rumor ran rampant in the late 80's and early 90's.  It is unfounded.  I am removing this sentence, since the source does not back up the claim.
:Quoth Albert Hofmann:
::Some years ago reports appeared in the scientific literature and also in the lay press, alleging that damage to chromosomes or the genetic material had been caused by LSD. These effects, however, have been observed in only a few individual cases. Subsequent comprehensive investigations of a large, statistically significant number of cases, however, showed that there was no connection between chromosome anomalies and LSD medication. The same applies to reports about fetal deformities that had allegedly been produced by LSD. In animal experiments, it is indeed possible to induce fetal deformities through extremely high doses of LSD, which lie well above the doses used in human beings. But under these conditions, even harmless substances produce such damage. Examination of reported individual cases of human fetal deformities reveals, again, no connection between LSD use and such injury. If there had been any such connection, it would long since have attracted attention, for several million people by now have taken LSD.
:From LSD – My Problem Child, chapter 2.  Be seeing you. Anville 10:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the claim that LSD causes birth defects is certainly unfounded, it may be true that LSD can induce uterine contractions. Erowid and The Good Drug's Guide, two fairly reputable sources of information, both claim that LSD can induce uterine contractions, as do many other websites. There must be some grain of truth here. Also note that there are chemicals structurally very similar to LSD, such as ergotamine tartrate, ergonovine, and ergometrine, which are oxytocic. I would not be surprised if LSD could stimulate uterine contractions. I haven't the time to search the medical literature, but if one were to look, I'll bet there would be something there. --Muugokszhiion 05:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "During the testing of LSD-25 in the pharmacological department of Sandoz, whose director at the time was Professor Ernst Rothlin, a strong effect on the uterus was established. It amounted to some 70 percent of the activity of ergobasine. The research report also noted, in passing, that the experimental animals became restless during the narcosis."  Again, from My Problem Child, chapter 1.  Ergobasine, also known as ergometrine and ergonovine, is the specific uterotonic principle of ergot, which midwives had used in childbirth practices since time immemorial (ibid).  Of course, uterine contractions and premature birth are not exactly the same thing as deformed fœtuses.  Anville 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, all this sounds a bit like the warnings they put on all the drug advertisements you see on TV:  "Do not use LSD if you are pregnant, nursing, or also receiving treatment for schizophrenia.  Consult your doctor and favourite rock band before trying LSD. . . ."  Anville 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Be that as it may, is that not evidence that LSD can cause uterine contractions in some individuals? I think we can feel free to add the information back into the article once it's properly cited. --Muugokszhiion 17:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already done so.  It's the third paragraph in Physical dangers.  Anville 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Dangers: Pregnant Women 

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