Do you think LSD has any benefits?

[copacetic]

LSD sounds like nutmeg. But nutmeg will probably kill you if digested whole. I know someone who ate 2 whole nutmegs and didn't know what she was in for or what they could do since you can buy processed nutmeg for food. She saw spiders crawl up her legs eating her flesh and everything spinning around her. Was very bad. Miracle she's alive today.

Nutmeg is extremely poisonous, LSD is not.

I don't think there's much similarity, aside from the potential for hallucinations.

 

[Synaesthesia]

LSD sounds like nutmeg. But nutmeg will probably kill you if digested whole. I know someone who ate 2 whole nutmegs and didn't know what she was in for or what they could do since you can buy processed nutmeg for food. She saw spiders crawl up her legs eating her flesh and everything spinning around her. Was very bad. Miracle she's alive today.

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.

 

[RiaX]

Why not? Because people disagree with you in a perfectly reasonable fashion?

That's lame.

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.

 

[Techne]

hmmmm if you could get a properly made and tested LSD and be under medical supervision, then why not. Though that options doesnt exist.

http://addictions.about.com/od/designerdrugs/tp/The-Truth-About-Acid.htm

some basic information on LSD myths vs truths. Druggies will go to far lengths to justify themselves, I have no idea why but its very common.

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.

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".

 

[copacetic]

*snip*

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:

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

Show the evidence then, please...

But, when you start saying things like:

So i've put down my points I've got nothing more to add and I dont feel like training pseudo-medicinal chemists here

So fine, whatever. If you can't actually defend your claims, then I'll just have to take them with a pinch of salt...

 

[copacetic]

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".

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.

 

[Techne]

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.

 

[noxibox]

Its not banned because its a narcotic, its banned because its dangerous like heroin.

You really are quite naive.

BTW caffiene is a stimulant :O it doesnt induece sleep nor is it banned soooo its not a narcotic. Just saying

The only thing LSD is is banned.

 

[noxibox]

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.

In fact it was very extensively studied before being made illegal, and there has been some research on it since.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Techne]

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.

 

[copacetic]

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.

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.

 

[copacetic]

Could you perhaps point to recent studies on LSD related to its mechanism of action. Heck, anything interesting from 2000 onward would be great.

Well, this is a bit difficult, considering the illegal status of the drug...

 

[copacetic]

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.

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.

 

[Techne]

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?

Do you want more than the already bad effects? If you can live without it, stay away from it.

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.

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, this is a bit difficult, considering the illegal status of the drug...

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.

 

[Unhappy438]

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.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2011/nov/16/new_study_smart_people_more_like
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/11/science-sure-smart-people-love-drugs/45015/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog.../201010/why-intelligent-people-use-more-drugs
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/14/high-iq-linked-to-drug-use/

 

[zippy]

Some people are content to live small, unimaginitive lives. Others, the pioneers, get out there and try achieve the impossible. Some may choose to explore the universe out there, while others may choose to expose the universe within. It is the stupid, not the intelligent as you say, who fail to broaden their horisons .. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog.../201010/why-intelligent-people-use-more-drugs

Yes, sometimes it's risky. So why do they take these risks? Simply because they want to!

Be safe. Wrap yourself in your protective blanky. It's ok, sometimes that's all some people can handle. But please don't force your beliefs on anyone else as nothing of use would ever have been invented were the world full of people like you ..

I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone. I'm expressing an opinion. Don't you know the difference ?

 

[RiaX]

So fine, whatever. If you can't actually defend your claims, then I'll just have to take them with a pinch of salt...

yeah just like a doctor's diagnosis. Im a pharmacologist a specialist in drugs, I dont need to back anything up unless its novel (arrogant yes but its only necessary if I speak to another specialist). To me its common sense and every post I've put has evidence, Ive even told you where to look. To understand what you saying here you first got to understand the human body which almost all of you have a next to nothing understanding of it, excuse the bluntness but its the fact. You can google the s**t out of serotonin but you have no idea how it will behave under different circumstances, nor have you seen it in a clinical setting. You people assume all of these psych profiles are fact, they are not. My clinical expertise shows what happens via experience. As I said you can show as much data as you want, but the facts from the hospitals dont lie. You know when serotonin is altered in the brain the GIT starts misbehaving right and the heart because there are serotonin receptors there too (not a single piece of referenced material mentioned this nothing but an abstract piece of a picture). Same with opioid receptors, ever seen a patient with a static bowel from opioid addiction? no wikipedia wont tell you it, your journals wont tell you it, because you lack the knowledge to understand the full picture yet xray shows it ... thats the difference, the journal articles are intended for those qualified in the field or on equal knowledge as those qualified hence not every detail is put down because when a Dr reads journal articles from SAPJ/SAMJ/Reps they assess this information we are all trained to do it.

@ techne nice a real journal article I must give it a proper read, EXACT mechanism of action isnt entirely important though. Usually that means its too complex so yeah. Like every TB drug out there they will state the exact MOA is not fully understood, but there is one also sometimes medically its not important if you assess the logic of use. If the patient is going to die without treatment then the details are not important, save their life first ask questions later. Like the ARV tenofovir, it was released with almost nothing known, only recently we been encountering nephrotoxicity and renal impairment with the drug and its been in use for over years, this is fast tracking a drug like the new MDR/XDR TB drugs being released. Secondly if a drug is deemed unsafe in phase 1 or in vitro testing then the project is cut and all durg tests will cease, once these claims are validated ethical clearence will not be given for further testing (this is where LSD fits hence why there is incomplete research). Either way if the drug is toxic that patient will die the outcome has not changed, however if you improve chance of survival from 0 to 10% is it not worth doing? chemotherapy is like this.

@ noibox

Its banned for a reason not because of conspriracy. For crying out loud people on LSD are unable to fill in a questionaire and you want to put it available legally for recreational use? are you insane. I wonder what you would say if your ER surgeon was on LSD or someone in your family is killed for fun by someone wacked out of their minds. People operating heavy machinery on LSD or a stupid college kid runs over your child driving under the influence... how fast you would change your tune. Its banned out of public safety because guess what you not the only person around

 

[Synaesthesia]

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.

OK. Since you understand why, why not tell us?

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.

Just because the literature says an active dosage level is so much, doesn't mean that there is NO effect at lower doses. Of course there is some effect, only lessened.

You know when serotonin is altered in the brain the GIT starts misbehaving right and the heart because there are serotonin receptors there too (not a single piece of referenced material mentioned this nothing but an abstract piece of a picture).

That may be true but still doesn't prove anything about LSD. Rvery drug has a risk-profile, and possibly unknown risks. But we can still take them. LSD has not yet proven to be phyisically harmful, it might indeed be, but it has never been proven.

Same with opioid receptors, ever seen a patient with a static bowel from opioid addiction? no wikipedia wont tell you it, your journals wont tell you it, because you lack the knowledge to understand the full picture

Oh please, constipation from Opiods is extremely well-known. Probably the most major side-effect of any Opiod, and why alternatives to Opioids for sought-after. Yes it's on Wikipedia, it's in journals, it's on the piece of paper in the medication, I've even experienced it! My word you're arrogant.

For crying out loud people on LSD are unable to fill in a questionaire and you want to put it available legally for recreational use? are you insane. I wonder what you would say if your ER surgeon was on LSD or someone in your family is killed for fun by someone wacked out of their minds. People operating heavy machinery on LSD or a stupid college kid runs over your child driving under the influence... how fast you would change your tune. Its banned out of public safety because guess what you not the only person around

People on LSD can't fill out a questionnaire? Where do you get this from? You DO need to provide sources please. Why would a surgeon or a person using machinery take LSD? That's ridiculous. Of course you shouldn't drive on it.

 

[Unhappy438]

For crying out loud people on LSD are unable to fill in a questionaire and you want to put it available legally for recreational use? are you insane. I wonder what you would say if your ER surgeon was on LSD or someone in your family is killed for fun by someone wacked out of their minds. People operating heavy machinery on LSD or a stupid college kid runs over your child driving under the influence... how fast you would change your tune. Its banned out of public safety because guess what you not the only person around

As opposed to someone who is drunk that can perform all those tasks perfectly? Infact i would think its much more likely that someone would drive or operate heavy machine under the influence of alcohol than lsd. Anyway im not trying to argue for the legalisation of lsd and i certainly don't think its illegal status is a conspiracy, i just find this argument for why lsd is illegal to be pretty silly.

 

[Unhappy438]

Also this stance of "im a drug specialist or im the head of department in a psychiatric hospital" so i dont have to explain my views or back it up with sources is bs.