Talk:LSD

Anxiety/Panic

I added this under Dangers. Anxiety and panic attacks are the most common LSD-related adverse effects. I'll add some references, or maybe somebody else could expand on this.

"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)

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

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 [1] "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, and 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)

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)

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)

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?