Talk:LSD/Archive 1

message: The article claims that scientific study of LSD ceased in 1980. That is simply not true, and you can visit the current LSD research link that I added, as well as the searchable Bibliography.  Additionally, the statement by the DEA in the same section is full of errors and misinformation.  Firstly, scientific LSD research has not been extensive and widespread.  Secondly, its use in psychotherapy has not been "largely debunked", but is in fact ongoing.  The DEA then goes on to claim that LSD does not produce "aphrodisiac effects".  What that has to do with the price of tea in China is confusing at best, although there is some evidence that in fact it does produce such effects.  The DEA claims that LSD does not increase creativity; Perhaps the DEA meant "productivity", as creativity is a subjective term.  The DEA claims that LSD "has no lasting positive effect in treating alcoholics or criminals" when studies clearly exist showing that it does, and when Leary did just that he was hauled off to jail as a warning to academia.  And on it goes.  The misinformation seems to have no end, but does a great job scaring people.  This article needs a serious revision. --Viriditas 11:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote from the DEA was drawn directly from the DEA's webpage, to provide their point of view. Neutral point of view requires that we present ALL points of view, not just the ones that you personally happen to agree with. Kwertii 22:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your reply.  I am familiar with the concept of NPOV and my initial response to the placement of the DEA's biased, opinionated, and politically-motivated comment in the Psychiatric Use section illustrates my concern with NPOV.  Firstly, the DEA is a law enforcement agency whose job is to explicitly suppress the sale of certain drugs by enforcing the Controlled Substances Act. They are not experts in the field of pharmacology or medicine, so the quote does not belong in the Psychiatic Use section.  Secondly, there were no sources, references or studies cited for the claim, so the claim remains unverified; an unsubstantiated assertion at worst, and a biased opinion at best.  Just because the DEA says it is so, does not a fact make.  Thirdly, I have not mentioned that I personally agree or disagree with any POV.  I have merely observed the lack of objectively true facts from the DEA, and a lack of adequate documentation on this subject.  Help me understand why this propaganda is included in the Psychiatric use section when it should be under a government and/or law enforcement section.  By including it in the Psychiatric Use section, you are inferring that the DEA are experts in pharmacology or medicine, and you are setting up an argument from authority.  I have no problem with the quote from the DEA being included on the page somewhere, but the current location is misleading. Please provide a primary cite for the claim made by the DEA, and the principal investigators who drew the conclusions in question.  Multiple points of view are important, but so is verifiability.  Thanks in advance. --Viriditas 12:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychiatric use 

message: Kwertii: I think the term 'sensory hallucinations' is problemtaic when used to describe LSD effects. From hallucination: "The ability to discriminate between self-generated and external sources of information is considered to be an important metacognitive skill and one which may break down to cause hallucinatory experiences." 
During hallucinogenic experiences it is usually possible to clearly discriminate drug indiced "hallucinations" from reality and in cases where it is not I would attribute delusional effects to secondary states, e.g. panic. The reason might be that "hallucinations" caused by psychedelics are rather abstract, or, at higher dosages, resemble active daydreaming and fantasies. This is in contrast to the real hallucinations caused by anticholinergic hallucinogens. I would call psychedelic "hallucinations" illusions, even if they seem to appear without external stimuli. 
25 µg is usually considered the threshold dose, i.e. a plus one on the shulgin rating scale: "The drug is quite certainly active. The chronology can be determined with some accuracy, but the nature of the drug's effects are not yet apparent."
What do you think about this description: "A typical dose of LSD is only 100 micrograms, a tiny amount of one-tenth the mass of a grain of sand." :-)
Cacycle 20:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of note, Shulgin puts the dose range from 60 to 200ug.  (See TiHKAL LSD).  Threshold dose is between 25 and 50ug, 25ug being the low end (i.e. the average person may feel nothing from 25ug).  100ug is on the high end of a mild dose, so I don't know if that qualifies as a "typical dose".  Incidentally, Erowid has figures different from that if TiHKAL (Erowid LSD Dosages).  Stating a threshold dose as low as 20ug, and a common dose from 50-150ug.  I suspect that those getting a significant effect from a dosage under 75ug were mixing it with other drugs such as cannabis or MDMA, had no idea what their dosage really was, or were experiencing a placibo effect.  In any case, I agree with your modifications ;)  It clarifies things quite a bit, and maybe the different levels/plateaus should be documented here.  I started a psychedelic experience page, but didn't do much with it so far.  I pasted in the various levels from the Psychedelic Experience FAQ, but it needs a lot of work.  --Thoric 23:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro: Hallucinations and dose 

message: I reverted Bletch's "NPOV" edit playing down the spread of misinformation that lead to the criminalization of LSD (i.e. chromosome damage, etc).  While that paragraph could possible be worded a little better, Bletch's edits too drastically changed the meaning of the paragraph, and there is a huge pile of evidence to prove that purposeful misinformation was at play here.  --Thoric 00:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thoric, I agree with you that there was (and still is!) deliberate misinformation about LSD, just as there was when Harry Anslinger told white people that marijuana would make their daughters sleep with black men and get syphilis. However, in order for Wikipedia to present a charge like that, it needs to be substantiated with references -- as the Anslinger quote is in that article. If you have specific references this article should cite on the subject, please add them. This will avoid the NPOV charge which otherwise is quite believable. --FOo 04:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation 

message: all he books i read say the same, that lsd and cannabis can cuase a psychosis. persons, who become psychotic, have had a latent psychosis, but expert do not know exatly, but most of them think so.
:Please provide citations.  --Viriditas  | Talk 08:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: psychosis

message: Just curious (really!), if LSD may be metabolized before the trip even wears off, is it possible to detect use of it afterwards? (clem 19:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I beleive so, because they can find some of the things it breaks down into; for years this had to be done through a spinal tap, so it never happened, but now i beleive they can test your hair . . .   of course, this all may be hearsay, strychnine giving you back problems forever type rumors.  Interestingly enough, i always thought that LSD was actually metabolized BEFORE it even kicks in . . .  that within 20 minutes or so, there isn't any lsd left in your brain.  i'll try to find this reference; if true, its very very interesting . . .   --Heah 19:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: drug test doesn't even mention LSD the way I see it? (clem 20:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: It can be detected for 24-72 hours in a urine test, but its not in the standard NIDA 5 . --Benna 03:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: LSD testing

message: Why was my flashback changes reverted? The cited study is clearly flawed. Have you actually read it? It's main point is that because only 23% of people taking LSD experiences flashbacks post-LSD, it means that 77% does not experience it (wow what a deep insight), and thus LSD doesn't cause flashbacks?! Sounds like good reasoning to you? No, but this is what is says! Go read it if you don't believe me. It's explanations for the 23% are even more dubious. Also note that this isn't a study worthy of an encyclopedia. It doesn't even seem it has been published in any journal (if it has, please let me know so I can write them and discredit the study), it's nothing more than a master of arts thesis and no-one is vouching for its accuracy. And it's flaws are very obvious. There is very clear evidence that LSD causes flashbacks - several studies have confirmed it in normal populations, and the prevalence is about 15-30%. Psychiatrists around the world are treating people with LSD-induced HPPD. All this evidence can not be dismissed by one seriously flawed meta-study that hasn't been published! Perhaps your ignorance of the other studies are due to wishful thinking?
(Added by  15:33, 15 May 2005.)
:In Hallucinogens, Nichols DE, Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2004 131-181, the quote is 
:Recently, Halpern and Pope (2003) have reviewed the evidence on hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD), the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition category for flashbacks. First, they note that the term flashback itself has been defined in so many different ways that they believe it is now virtually useless. Second, they point out that when LSD was used in a therapeutic or research setting, HPPD appeared less frequently than when it was used recreationally. Finally, because of the different ways that flashbacks were defined, it is impossible to discern the true incidence of the disorder. They do conclude that at least for some individuals, particularly users of LSD, a long-lasting HPPD syndrome can occur with symptoms of ‘‘persistent perceptual abnormalities reminiscent of acute intoxication.’’ Based on the millions of people who have taken hallucinogens, the incidence of HPPD appears to be very small, and there is presently no effective treatment.
:In a newer paper, Hallucinogens: An Update, Halpern writes, "Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (“flashbacks”) are mentioned because this illness is often presented as a common adverse consequence of hallucinogen abuse. A recent careful review of the literature on HPPD reports that it is a rare disorder that develops in a distinctly vulnerable subpopulation of users who also were primarily exposed to LSD, in particular".
:It would seem that 15-30% can't be characterized as a "rare" disorder. So, either Halpern is wrong, or that 15% figure is. A 15% incidence would imply 3.75 million people afflicted, in the US alone! If you refine the scope to heavy users (>50 times), that still works out to more than 600,000 people. Suffice to say, psychiatrists haven't been inundated by anywhere near that order of magnitude, let alone that number. My numbers are derived from the latest SAMHSA dataset I have come across. So, flashbacks are real but rare, and you have to be predisposed somehow to get them. If you have academic or 'peer-reviewed' data to the contrary, I'm all ears. Gyan 22:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Flashbacks" are exceedingly rare, and the higher figures likely come more from bandwagon fallacy than anything else... for example: "yeah... I tried acid, it was pretty scary... I saw God... only tried it once, and still get flashbacks... I won't go near the stuff..."  Historic studies show that incidences of reported ill effects (such as so calledflashbacks) go up drastically after media reports describing such conditions.  --Thoric 18:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Given that you've ignored the straightforward request to sign your comment, I'm not sure what good this will do, but: I'm not responsible for the current content, and don't have to justify anything.  I saw that you had added a long passage which involved a set of claims for which you gave no citations.  It's not a question of whether you're right or wrong (I personally am extremely dubious about the value and validity of so-called meta-studies), but whether what you did conforms to Wikipedia policy. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 16:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean you can revert anything the anon writes that you don't like. It appears you didn't even read the second version of what was put in. It was more factually stated. Now, to the anon, I've put the text back in, but you need to cite some evidence for the study being disputed. Wikipedia is not for original research so you disputing it does not matter. Find some published studies that do or some published studies that discuss the flashbacks and write factually about those. As a tip, what you wrote the first time fell far from NPOV, and was full of opinion. Cite valid sources and all will be good. - Taxman 18:44, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
I most certainly did read it — it was in many ways even worse, including a direct appeal to the reader which goes against Wikipedia (or any encyclopædia's) style, and at least one bad typo.  Merely reinserting it without noticing (or caring about?) those problems isn't acceptable. Also, your edit summary that the new material is no worse than anything else here isn't justification for letting it in; it's grounds for improving what's already here.  Let's go for consistency by raising the quality, not by dragging it all down to the lowest common denomoninator. Given that this apparently a featured article, we should be particularly careful about what's added. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll have no problems with the reference to the study being removed. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Flashback material

message: The statistic that indicates that "studies in the 1950s" had a 50% rate of "curing" alcoholism needs citations for support--if it's to remain in this article--for several reasons: 1) Any time a claim is made regarding the statistical outcome of a scientific venture, the publication on which this claim is based must be referenced in order allow for others to interpret, judge and choose whether to accept or dispute the claim. And 2) Pertinent alcohol-related literature suggests that alcoholism is an "incurable" disorder. Rather, alcoholics who abstain for any length of time (including from the initiation of abstemious behavior to death) are said to be continually "in recovery." This statement is made generally because the psychological and interpersonal repercussions attributable to alcohol use/abuse with which the alcoholic must cope and endure persist throughout the lifespan--i.e., alcohol-related onset of depression, anxiety, fear of intimacy peri-recovery, etc.
Reference: 
Kadden, et. al (1995). Preface. In M. E. Mattison (Ed.) National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism project MATCH monograph series: A clinical research guide for therapists treating individuals with alcohol abuse and dependence (pp. vii-xi).
Rockville: National Institutes of Health
::There were a number of sets of studies.  Such as the well documented ones done by Humphry Osmond's team in Saskatchewan, Canada, and another by Timothy Leary's team at Harvard.  --Thoric 19:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Citations - "Curing" Alcoholism 

message: What about moving the quote section to wikiquote and add a link to that? -- Pål Drange
The quote by 'SUBTREX' looks like a vandal's handiwork.
:The quote by SUBTREX and the quote "One world before, many worlds after" are both gone now (the latter having been deleted before) because they aren't notable or famous quotations, they're just something someone said. GTBacchus 05:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Before creating an account, I did a minuscule edit. Come on - we all know flashbacks can occur for years, and in the article it only said "days or months". — Twisturbed Tachyon 02:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "We all know" this? — mjb 11:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It was a rhetorical question. I was pointing out that your statement that "we all know" that some possibly contentious assertion (in this case, regarding the experience of flashbacks and how long after-the-fact they occur) indicates that you are making assumptions about the use of LSD by contributors to the discussion, and perhaps also about their personal experiences with flashbacks. (I didn't think it was necessary to explain my comment, but you requested a response on my Talk page) — mjb 22:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Flashback edit

message: Seriosly, is anyone even experienced? 
Reads like a teenager with aspirations of becoming a psychiatrist wrote this whilst on bible camp, in crayon, then dictated it to their besty who punched it in with their thumbs through autocorrect.
No wonder research is fifty years behind where it could be. Benjaminzedrine (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is wack.  

message: From history: Cobberlicious talk contribs‎  174,020 bytes −95‎  Removed a nonsensical, unreferenced statement: "Frequent use rapidly builds tolerance, requiring exponentially larger doses to feel an effect." -- rapid LSD tolerance is hardly "nonsensical", perhaps this needs to have a reference here, or be reworded, but shouldn't be removed. This is a distinct characteristic of LSD and similar psychedelics. Taking the exact same dose the very next day will only produce half the effect, and the dose basically needs to be doubled. On the third day it would need to be doubled again, and by the fourth day, often doubling the dose once again doesn't produce the same effects, and people become uneasy taking very high doses.
https://mind-foundation.org/tolerance-to-lsd/ Thoric (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolerance