Nutmeg is extremely poisonous, LSD is not.Originally Posted by BLIXEMPIE
I don't think there's much similarity, aside from the potential for hallucinations.
Nutmeg is extremely poisonous, LSD is not.
I don't think there's much similarity, aside from the potential for hallucinations.
Nutmeg is hallucinogenic, but not similar to LSD. It's a soporific, makes you sleepy and stoned, like a large quantity of marijuana. And it lasts like 24 hours. Also it's quite toxic, I wouldn't recommend it.
There is a difference between debating and defending. Read a few bits and pieces and thinking you understand the picture isnt going to make you right. You can understand and as much as you want on how a car's gearbox work but you wont be able to build a car. As with any user of a substance they justify their reasons for doing it and defend it, like creationists defending their theories against evolution. Even i do it when people tell me "hey you a medical officer why are you smoking?" its normal, thought its too much effort and its obvious to me that the discussion is no longer about discovering the information of LSD but rather "winning my debate", that same attitude that is driven into people in school, here is a topic of debate NOW WIN.
The reality of the situation is LSD is a substance of abuse. Its bad. Its been determined bad for your health by people who are way more qualified than us. Since im in the field I understand why and there are no conspriacies against it. So i've put down my points I've got nothing more to add and I dont feel like training pseudo-medicinal chemists here. I bet most people still think oil and water cant mix. So if you determine its safe and you willing to experiment with it chronically, then perhaps we might meet one day, when I come to evaluate the pharmacology of your psych treatment like the rest of the people that think "naaa this <insert narcotic here> has good properties"
BTW microdosing is invalid the dose for LSD is from 25mcg upwards, anything less will not cause an effect so you suffering from a placebo should you experience one. There is a thing called minimum plasma concentration. You get a graph where Cpss is directly proportional to efficacy. Also from the reported tests the ED50 of LSD shows that its dose is 0.5mcg/kg in humans .... anything less than that and there will be no effect from the drug itself and because of the properties of LSD you cant do divided doses only STAT doses would work.
Indeed, the ways druggies and YECs reason and try to defend their stance are strikingly similar.
Anyway, relatively very little appears to be known about LSD's mechanism of action, more specifically, it's binding mode to the particular proteins it is supposed to interact with. Getting this substance into phase I clinical trials would be very irresponsible and irrational, never mind taking it as a "recreational substance".
You can't trust a meta-ethical moral relativist since such a person can abuse reason to justify any act.
I'm not defending LSD. I don't see why I'd need to anyway. I've seen you make a lot of assertions, some of which I am not sure are true, and frankly you haven't backed your claims with much, aside from your position of some sort of expert (and I am certainly willing to accept that you are better equipped to understand these things, sure), but that does not magically make claims like:
Show the evidence then, please...The reality of the situation is LSD is a substance of abuse. Its bad. Its been determined bad for your health by people who are way more qualified than us
But, when you start saying things like:
So fine, whatever. If you can't actually defend your claims, then I'll just have to take them with a pinch of salt...So i've put down my points I've got nothing more to add and I dont feel like training pseudo-medicinal chemists here
Last edited by copacetic; 18-08-2012 at 03:32 PM.
LSD has had studies done on it in the past, and there are places like Sweden that are (as far as I know) planning to do some human experimentation with LSD in the future. People have been using the stuff for many decades now, and I think if there was some extreme danger, we'd know about it by now.
There's been a great deal of talk about how dangerous it is, but I've not seen any actual evidence that this is the case, in fact, I'm pretty sure that most of the unbiased and scientific examinations of LSD paint it as one of the less dangerous drugs to use, without a doubt less so than alcohol or nicotine.
I wouldn't ingest LSD based on our relatively poor understanding of the mechanism of action of it and the pretty well-known potential negative effects. It would be pretty dumb.
You can't trust a meta-ethical moral relativist since such a person can abuse reason to justify any act.
You really are quite naive.
The only thing LSD is is banned.BTW caffiene is a stimulant :O it doesnt induece sleep nor is it banned soooo its not a narcotic. Just saying
In fact it was very extensively studied before being made illegal, and there has been some research on it since.
Well nicotine is very toxic in excess, but otherwise generally benevolent. I'd say alcohol is quite benevolent when not consumed to excess. But you won't be getting any facts to back up the claim that LSD is extremely dangerous because there simply is none. Like most illegal drugs it's legal status is based on paranoia sustained through propaganda.There's been a great deal of talk about how dangerous it is, but I've not seen any actual evidence that this is the case, in fact, I'm pretty sure that most of the unbiased and scientific examinations of LSD paint it as one of the less dangerous drugs to use, without a doubt less so than alcohol or nicotine.
Then you're pretty much sh** out of luck when it comes to a wide variety of medications. The market's full of medications we don't fully understand and more that are being being trialled.
Could you perhaps point to recent studies on LSD related to its mechanism of action. Heck, anything interesting from 2000 onward would be great.
You can't trust a meta-ethical moral relativist since such a person can abuse reason to justify any act.
What are all these well know potential negative effects? Aside from the possibility of a bad trip (which any potential user should be aware of) what are these dire things you folk are talking about?
As for understanding the mechanism of effect, is it any more or less understood than say, antidepressants? Which do work very well, and many people take them.
Well, this is a bit difficult, considering the illegal status of the drug...
While I agree, what I had in mind was the toll that smoking (as opposed to the chemical nicotine) and alcohol consumption has on a given society, in a negative respect (to balance out the alleged) negative effects of LSD (which, as you say, are virtually non-existent).
As for the propaganda and paranoia, yes, completely agree.
Do you want more than the already bad effects? If you can live without it, stay away from it.
A lot more is known about the mechanism of action of antidepressants compared to LSD. This latest review just demonstrates this, notice no major mechanistic research has been done in the past 15 years.
Heck, we don't even know the mechanism of LSD reactive oxygen species (ROD) production (if it does even produce ROS), never mind the potential long-term negative effects that might be because of it or the epigenetic changes it may trigger. This is really a no-brainer, intelligent, educated people would most likely stay away from this. Of course you get the odd one out as druggies, even educated and seemingly intelligent ones, tend to argue like YECs to try and justify their lifestyle.
Well thanks for proving my point. Until further research is done to understand more about the mechanism of action, rather stay away from it if you can. Don't be dumb.
You can't trust a meta-ethical moral relativist since such a person can abuse reason to justify any act.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks