Talk:Lysergic acid diethylamide/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Modern Distribution

This is found in the Modern Distribution section, does it seem a wee bit misplaced to anybody else? "In April, 2007, Canadian psychologist Andrew Feldmar was permanently barred from entering the United States[57]after a border patrol agent used the internet to uncover a 2001 paper by Feldmar, Entheogens and Psychotherapy, which admits to therapeutic LSD use during the 1960s.[58] However, this has nothing to do with modern distribution." 68.100.79.249 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Micrograms and Potency

The following statement is no longer valid and was not valid when the article was made neither: "LSD is, by mass, one of the most potent drugs yet discovered. Dosages of LSD are measured in micrograms (µg), or millionths of a gram. By comparison, dosages of almost all other drugs, both recreational and medical, are measured in milligrams (mg), or thousandths of a gram." Apart from not having a source or citation, there are now drugs with far more potency than LSD, namely:

  • Fentanyl which is 1000 times more potent than morphine, a pain killer administrated by a patch at 12 µg/h (micrograms per hour) with a fatal dose of 300µg in an intolerant opioid user. Fentanyl in extremely low doses mixed with other substances is often sold as street heroin due to its potency. Activating dose starting at 10µg in humans.
  • Etorphine which is 3000 times more potent than morphine. Although a pain killer, due to its potency, it is typically used to tranquilize and sedate large mammals such as elephants and rhinos. One drop on a human skin is enough to kill. Activating dose starting at 3.5µg in humans.
  • Carfentanil which is 10,000 times more potent than morphine is also another pain killer with activity starting in humans at 1µg/h making it the most potent drug. Although a pain killer, due to its potency, it is typically used to tranquilize and sedate large mammals such as elephants and rhinos. 1/3 of drop on a human skin is enough to kill. Activating dose starting at 1µg in humans.
  • Etonitazene

LSD activating dose starts at 50µg in humans. Making Carfentanil 50 times more potent than LSD in activating dose comparison. Fentanyl is 5 times more potent than LSD.

Fentanyl was discovered in the 1950's, and its usage in the streets recreationally became apparent in the 1970's. Etorphine was discovered in the 1960's. So it could be argued LSD was one of the most potent drugs for a period of time until the discovery of Fentanyl in the 1950's. Out of the above only Fentanyl is used in humans to treat pain.

There are many more which you are free to find your selves, but I thought I'll add the ones that are morphine related, specially fentanyl which is a typical heroin substitute to keep within the "drug" category e.g. LSD, heroin, morphine, cocaine and so on. So please either remove the sentence "LSD is, by mass, one of the most potent drugs yet discovered....." or rephrase it. And its worth to note there are medicine's far more potent than the LSD, one being the frog poison derived pain killer (which by the way rots/deprives the nerves from staying moist with long term use). So there we go, a medicine and a recreational drug more potent than LSD. --87.194.3.52 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured article status

Apparently, featured article status has been removed. The comments are on Wikipedia:Featured article review/LSD/archive1. I propose that uncited information be marked with the {{Fact}} template even if you can't find a citation off hand.Sjeng 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Production

This article hasn't got enough info on how LSD is produced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Right Honourable (talkcontribs) 06:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Plagarism

The text in the Psychological section of LSD effects is copied from the Problem Solving psychedelic (www.psychedelic-library.org) without quotation or citation. I couldn't figure out where to report this blatant copying, so I'm posting here and I hope some moral soul with knowledge of wikipedia will fix the entry. After all, right below the editing box it says "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted."

Text has been tampered with

Someone has tampered with the text in the article... LSD is described as being 'highly addictive' and the rest of the sentence contradicts the statement. The misstatements appear throughout the text. Someone with more patience than I ought to review the entire article for accuracy.

Not to mention the lead in paragraph which refers to Howard Stern's piss.

Simple English

I realize that while this is a very good article, incredibly informative (I got an A on the paper I did in my health class thanks to this article) but I think it would be great if someone could make a simple english version, one focused much more so on the characteristics of the drug, side effects, etc. because if someone had heard "oh, It's not an addictive drug" they might want to try it without realizing how dangerous it really is. A simple english version would be better for someone trying to find out those type of things.

The facts is, LSD is not really that dangerous. Studies in the 60's showed it's in fact a really safe drug. less than 1% of people tested suffered negative side affects, this is even less than the negative side affects of marijuana. I will try and make a "simple english" version now though.

I love the above unsigned users' discussion here, especially the usage of the introductory "the facts is"... danger is relative. 70.114.242.136 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
But then he does state explicitly he is referring to studies from the 60's... better than the grandparent post which, with no justification, implies it is a dangerous drug. danger is relative.
LSD is harmless if used properly, but not everyone can use LSD because of problems (Depression, Anger problems, Sadness, Pregnancy). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Right Honourable (talkcontribs) 08:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

LSD is not an addictive drug. Your reasoning why it should be labelled as such doesn't make any sense (people may then want to try it). Let's keep this factual and not impose your own fears on a substance that, while certainly powerful and certainly poses some risks, has also been heralded as a key to unlocking personal insights for millions of people, just as long as other people dont impose their own fears on the substance and bum them out. Set and setting is the key and you are creating a bad set.

Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Featured Article Review of February 2006

Distribution

"Most of the main distributors of the 1970s traveled with the Grateful Dead until Jerry Garcia's death."

Did they follow the Dead on tour, like Deadheads, or did they travel with the band itself as part of the band's entourage? If the former, then the sentence needs to be revised somehow; if the latter, then I just learned something new! Joey Q. McCartney 11:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ever hear of the Merry Pranksters and their Acid Tests? They were traveling with the Grateful Dead.

Which begs the question of whether the Merry Pranksters were major distributors of LSD during the early 1970s. Unless we know the answer is yes, then I think the sentence probably does need revising. I have changed it to:

Starting in the 1970s, many of the main distributors are thought to have followed the Grateful Dead's frequent tours, continuing this practice until Jerry Garcia's death.

However, now that I read the whole section and the following one, I believe this sentence and the one below it are out-of-place (they discuss the 70s and beyond, the topic of the next section) and redundant (similar text is in the next section). I propose deleting them. --MattBagg 07:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Starting in the 1970s, many of the main distributors are thought to have followed the Grateful Dead's frequent tours, continuing this practice until Jerry Garcia's death.
Who thought that? The Drug Enforcement Agency thought "Local independent dealers, usually Caucasian males in their late teens or early twenties, are the principal retail distributors of LSD. However, the Milwaukee HIDTA indicates that some local independent LSD dealers are Mexican nationals, and the DEA Philadelphia Field Division identifies members of outlaw motorcyclegangs as retail distributors of LSD. Sales of the drug most often take place at colleges, high schools, nightclubs, and raves." [1]
Further... Distribution, according to the DEA is "First, overnight delivery services, including express mail, Federal Express, and DHL, are used extensively to transport large amounts of LSD throughout the United States. Second, LSD is shipped to major distributors in cities that host concerts of the "Grateful Dead" band. The concerts are used as a forum for large-scale LSD distribution, as well as low-level or retail sales." This would suggest the distributors alreay reside in the destinaton city, (where they already know the clientele?) not that they follow the band. CheckFacter 18:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Getting information from the DEA regarding LSD, LSD distribution, etc., is akin to relying on thirteen year old boys as founts of wisdom regarding the wonders of the female body. It may be said with earnestness, conviction, and an air of certitude, but you are more than likely going to come away with some very serious misunderstandings. (Forget the Dead connection: it's the "Mexican nationals"!)Levi P. 09:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

hahaha

i don't have any LSD, and i don't take LSD but...

i've researched this considerably- through first person interviews of traveling a few deadheads/"family"- they traveled anywhere about 10 years on tour with the dead from the 80's until jerry died.

the acid is cooked up by a few groups- common knowledge among acidheads- that have been loosely associated since the dead formed in the mid-late sixties (bear owsley was in with these guys)

these groups still exist today (2006) last i heard, in some form (proteges and old guys combined) they're referred to as "families" each family produces a different crystal- silver, lavendar, amber, fluff, needlepoint are the main groups, each has a different potency (but the same effect- weaker stuff requires more Micrograms of doseage to get the same effect of the stronger stuff) some cooks cease production, producing very infrequently and calculating release to coincide with band tours and festivals

the grateful dead had bear owsley- he brewed acid originally with a few others, but got busted. he ran the soundboard on tour and was a cook, and after getting outta jail stuck to semi-legit means.

others were cooking it back in the 60's too. they got the Ergotamine tartrate from secure sources, in quantity (and probably do to this day) and made large batches of crystal. i'll postulate and say that some of the family that distributed acid were probably in the dead's backstage group, but the vast majority were the fans in the parking lot- and the highest up guys probably stayed away from both the lots and backstage for security very shortly after owslery busts, and so on until jerry's death (common knowlege was that almost all acid came from dead shows)

when the deadheads started coming around, thats when the networks started forming. acid became illegal a few years after the dead formed, but it was still rampantly availible. in the 1970's, the dead started touring "keeping the 60's alive one concert to the next" and informal networks of people following the band, hanging out in the parking lots, and doing drugs congealed into these family networks. this was it.

it is a tight brotherhood- a fraternal order. membership is going to shows, and showing your belief in the music, and acid. these people brought most of the acid around for the last 35 years. The traveling deadheads met fans in parking lots in at the venue before or after the show (or during) and do a deal, hangout and dose (take acid) sometimes numbers get exchanged, and then they setup a deal through western union and the post office on blotter (very, very hard to trace).

crystal acid is only bought and sold by "family"- those that travel tour after tour- and are dedicated to spreading LSD. it's a quasi-religion to them, as they are true believers it is the savior to society. most LSD sold in the lots while the Dead traveled for sixties years was actually quite regulated, by social pressure on the lot (people wanted to spread the stuff, it was important to get it out, it was believed) acid came in microdots, blotter, and liquid usually (or something as a medium from the liquid form)

only members of the dead family actually had access to the LSD crystal (1 gram of crstal is 10,000 hits- a hefty prison sentence- so they kept it in the trusted circles) to carry crystal, you had to go through initiation, what was called a thumbprint- a large dose of undiluted LSD in its crystaline form- right outta the jar- usually a couple hundred "hits"- people have been known to do much more (ex.: robert hunter's famed 250,000 microgram "i died a thousand deaths" trip was said to be around 2500 hits of LSD)

the family and its social structure kept prices ridiculously low by black market standards up until the late 1990's when the family started to fall apart/retire. since Jerry Garcia died, and the Dead members tour very infrequently, most of the family has retired, and acid is much harder to come by (the dead used to have 4 tours per year- ensuring acid would get around)

thats how most of it got around for the last 35 years.

the bust of Pickard in 2003- well i've been told by elder deadheads he was not a "family" cook, but he knew all the original guys (read my edit on the brotherhood of eternal love) his acid went mostly to Europe. he got a life sentance- so, it is said, he threatened to expose the other cooks in exchange for a lighter sentance (most had distanced themselves from pickard several years back- he's had a few acid lab busts and an already bad repuatation)

thus, a 95% drop in LSD availibility- people shut up shop overnight. don't ask me where i got this, or if i have acid- i've never done LSD, and have no access to it. i only knew a couple who traveled with the dead, and was interested in his stories (which i have turned into personal memoirs to share with anyone who cares)

a good quote from this fellow "Without the Grateful Dead, there would be no LSD. Without LSD, there would be no Grateful Dead" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonoski (talkcontribs) 11 April 2006

thats a pretty good summation of what consitutes my undertstanding of this rather unlightened issue, although i am not sure about some of the details of the family 70.114.242.136 19:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

the concept or terminology "family" has no specific or formal definition. "family" can mean the rainbow family (which doesn't have anything to do with LSD, though some members of the LSD "families" have "taken the rainbow trail" aka retiring and/or choosing an alternative lifestyle (many of said people ended up in the Pacific Northwest, namely oregon, but other places as well)

as for the "dead family", which includes, but is not limited to, the LSD "families" (the term family is so loosely and liberally applied in these circles), there are many facets to the touring family. the LSD distribution networks are called "families" as are friends and touring deadheads. you become family by simply hanging out, show after show, and befriending like-minded people (not everyone "gets along" at these things, contrary to popular belief, but there is a general cameraderie)

LSD: the main families are (with assumed/commonplace purity grades over the 1980's and 1990's) lavendar (lower grade crystal 70% pure), amber (low-mid grade 70-80% pure) silver (higher grade at 85-90%+ pure- mass-produced crystal- very common) fluff (95% pure give or take) and needlepoint (97% pure, sometimes higher- said to be refined fluff- unsure of this). to have access to crystal meant extreme trust, and years of loyalty/working the lot. people at this level ate straight crystal (many, many hits at a time, sometimes regularly). a courier who bought grams, or even ounces of crystal, may have access to a few different family's crystals, or, often was the case, associations with all the families' products. prices were usually according to quality, and were rather static for years (LSD distribution was not a profit-based enterprise as i stated above- it was about spreading it). grams of crystal went for $2000-4000 (about 20-40 cents per hit- as you can see, that kept $1/hit common, while people selling it lived comfortably though not like kings).

add: LSD is stored in CO2 dark glass jars, and has a shelf life assumed, in the right conditions, to be indefinite. that said, production runs are most likely short. needlepoint, for instance, is said to be no longer produced. but it has been released in the past few years (since 2000)... a production run might last a few weeks or a month, producing a few ounces to several ounces (even mention of a single 5-7 kilogram run of silver crystal was said to be one of the largest single runs of the 1980's and 1990's was many, many millions of hits and was probably several years worth in supply).

those with access to crystal "layed it" on blotter- sometimes with fancy, distinguishable prints, other times just plain old #5 watercolor paper (undetectable). crystal was diluted into a pyrex bowl with everclear alcohol. the purer crystal dissolved better. sometimes impure crystal didn't disolve completely, leaving inconsistent end product (sometimes VERY strong hits on one sheet, and weaker on others)

1 gram made 100 sheets. a sheet is 2.5" square. one sheet is 100 hits. a hit is a quarter inch square. for example: 1 gram of 70% pure lavendar layed 10,000 "70 mics" hits. as a black market, the families actually kept a level of standardization in product- there were consequences for laying weak product or overcharging. the going rate for laying a gram of crystal was $300- that is, the one who bought, layed, and sold the packaged crystal on paper made $300 per gram or the equivelent of 10,000 hits (again, not profit driven). liquid gels were pretty simply made. as was liquid (these were less frequent- paper was preferred as LSD courier weight laws made lightweight and concealable paper much safer)

these families are all but gone now from touring- only a few remain. anyone who frequented shows in the past 5-15 years can note the familiar faces have faded to a few. LSD production still exists, in an altered, limited circle of distribution. it was brought to my attention that some strong acid has made a resurgence in the past few years, after the major shutdown from the wamego/pickard bust. who knows where this will go...

hard to put any of this info into article form- and it is hearsay i must admit- but rather accurate hearsay, as it's been verified by quite a few old timers. just don't like to see history get lost simply because nobody took the time to write about their experiences, albeit legally-questionable in nature... i'd like to thank those that shared their experiences. good times i am sure. and i've hoped you enjoyed reading about them as well.

Why are drug articles on Wikipedia always the best?

Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talkcontribs) 14 March 2006

I'd also like to know why?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Towel (talkcontribs) 24 March 2006
yeah.. why? maybe because LSD specifically changed a whole society in the '60s... and maybe because they're like taboos, and taboos generaly result a nice, hot, enthusiastic writing. Steiger 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
LSD had a big part in birthing the infotech revolution. It is a major component of the ancestry of computer technology and Internet. Berkeley, Stanford, RAND, Xerox PARC, SRI - and the young startups coming out of them - were well-steeped in acid. Pick up Markoff's "What The Dormouse Said" for a great exploration of that history.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.196.55 (talkcontribs) 5 April 2006
i have knowledge about this book. Some reviews i read says it's not, well, much good, but undoubtely acid had played a major role in computer revolution
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Steiger (talkcontribs) 13 April 2006
Because it's soffo'real much bett'ha than'uh no drug's, and drugs in general rocks!

Plus, people like to write about "rebellic" themes, therefore, students with left-over time come on here to spout off their LSD knowledge, 'cuz it's "cool" and "edgy".--OleMurder 01:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"50% success rate" citation

Regarding this excerpt from the main Wikipedia LSD article:

"Studies in the 1950s that used LSD to treat alcoholism professed a 50% success rate, higher than one estimate of a 5% success rate for Alcoholics Anonymous. [citation needed]"

A book I came across, The Chemistry of Mind-Altering Drugs, states:

"At Hollywood Hospital in British Columbia more than 500 alcoholics and other patients were treated with psychedelic drugs, usually one high dose of LSD or mescaline after 2 to 4 weeks of preparation. About 50% of the alcoholics, many who had failed in AA, recovered and were sober a year later."

Citation is given as the following in the bibliography (the following is quoted verbatim):

Maclean, J.R.; Macdonald, D.C.; Ogden, F.; Wilby, E., "LSD-25 and mescaline as therapeutic adjuvants." In: Abramson, H., Ed., The Use of LSD in Psychotherapy and Alcoholism, Bobbs-Merrill: New York, 1967, pp. 407-426. In the same work, see also Ditman, K.S.; Bailey, J.J., "Evaluating LSD as a psychotherapeutic agent," pp.74-80; and Hoffer, A., "A program for the treatment of alcoholism: LSD, malvaria, and nicotinic acid," pp. 353-402.

The book also cites another interesting fact (the following is quoted verbatim):

Dispropyltryptamine (DPT) has also been employed in the treatment of alcoholics: Grof, S.; Soskin, R.A.; Richards, W.A.; Kurland, A.A., "DPT as an adjunct in psychotherapy of alcoholics," International Pharmacopsychiatry, 1973, 8, pp. 104-115.

This is all from The Chemistry of Mind-Altering Drugs:

Perrine, Daniel M. The Chemistry of Mind-Altering Drugs. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 1996. 263.

I believe this should be enough to replace the "Citation needed" with the correct information, above. I have cited it and added a References section to the end of the article. I believe I have used the correct format, but if I have not, please change it so it is correct. Feel free to discuss. --Muugokszhiion 20:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the citation that is needed is for the success rate of AA, not the success rate of LSD psychotherapy. I think this because the success rate of LSD psychotherapy is clearly averaging over several studies, while the AA citation appears to be citing a single estimate. Accordingly, I believe a citation is still needed unless we know that the AA figure is in one of the LSD references you give. --MattBagg 01:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the success rate of LSD treatment is the only one given in the study. A citation may still be needed for the AA success rate, but not for LSD treatment (since we have it). The next step is finding a reliable quotation of the success rate of Alcoholics Anonymous (hopefully from a source other than AA...). I've changed the location of the reference tag to help make this more clear. --Muugokszhiion 01:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

chemical structure

can we switch the locations of the chemical structure and the lsd stamp pictures? i feel this is more in line with all the other articles about chemical compounds and would have helped me more when i'm browing through different chemicals for similarities. The preceding unsigned comment was added by HiS oWn (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC).

Done. —Viriditas | Talk 04:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Strychnine

I have heard that LSD is often "cut" with strychnine (or other chemicals). I didn't see it mentioned in the article. I wonder if it's true, and if so could this be added by someone with knowledge on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.137.57 (talkcontribs) 24 April 2006

Another Urban legend, as the person below me put it, it would be almost impossible. But as happened in philadelphia last year where the heroin dealers killed 14 people in order to convince the dope community that there was a new kind that even the toughest addicts would over dose.This is even more evidence against strychnine since the LSD community doesnt typically have "fiends". Mr.Merrel December 12, 06 5:00

Why would anyone add a poison to a drug? It is not in the interest of a dealer to kill his customer. Some information on the strychnine myth can be found here and also here. --Muugokszhiion 06:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Does seem odd, I've heard of strychnine been cut with drugs, I thought that was a reference to another drug like cocaine though. raptor 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
"LSD contaminated with strychnine" is a standard urban legend. However, it's entirely nonsense for the reasons given. LSD is ridiculously potent; it's active at dosages that only other neurotransmitter-like psychoactives are. (For instance, melatonin is active in sub-milligram dosages.) --FOo 02:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't logged in right now, but hear me out... I have many web citations for DEA field testing in the last 5 years or so that reveal many drugs that have been found being sold as or having the appearance of LSD. Even though there are many myths out there, there are also verifiable facts concerning LSD adulteration that have become available in the last few years and especially since the marked decrease in LSD availability which can also be cited... i read an essay on it in a book in Barnes and Nobles the other day. Because of the ideal image of LSD, hustlers and drug dealers (who represent a much higher percentage of LSD distributors than LSD users usually expect) began looking for alternatives to LSD to sell as "acid" to their market. Drugs like 5Meo_AMT and more commonly DOB or DOI, that are very dissimilar to LSD in chemical structure, but have some subjectively similar characteristics and pharmacollogy, have been used throughout the U.S. on blotter and in liquid form. I have citations. User:Flying Hamster


The amount of strychnine (or cyanide for that matter) that could be absorbed on a 1/4 inch-1/8 inch square of paper wouldn't be enough to kill you, or probably even make you sick.

http://www.bellmarine.com/ld50_data.htm

Cyclopiano 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Where can I buy it?

This article gives such a positive image of LSD. It seems like the only reason that it is banned that there was some kind of a moral panic. Can you send me some LSD?

I seriously hope you're joking, because nobody here is going to straight-up mail you a bunch of acid. If you really want to try it, go find your local hippy hangout. The Chief 17:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
ever heard of wikimeet ;) just kidding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.114.242.136 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC).


If you give me your adress i'll send you some. (joke)The Right Honourable 23:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Its not like it cost that much. It seems that your clearly unfamiliar with the topic and could seriously hurt yourself --Frozenport 04:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
LSD is safe if you use it properly
Yeah dude, lsd isn't that big of fuckin' deal. And what the fuck!? I was going to ask this fucking' question as a JOKE! But NOOO you had to do it first. ass

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.11.28 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Very Important Pro-LSD Message

First of all, Harmil, Comparing LSD in any way to a drug as corrupting and diabolical as methanmphetamine is pointless.

I like how you used the words "Associated with psychotic episodes." It is in fact uncommonly associated with psychotic episodes.

LSD may cause some "psychotic episodes" if taken in too large a dosage. And that does depends on set and setting, like the article said. Even then, the effects are temporary.

My personal conclusion on LSD is that, yes "bad trips" may permanently traumatize the user but that's like taking a prisoner out of his cell saying "good moring" then sending him back in the cell. The people who ended up killing themselves (all 4 LSD-related cases over the past 30 years) are in cases of people who already had demonstrated suicidal tendencies before using LSD.

And comments to the people saying "but black market drugs often have impurities"... Well sure many times if you buy weed or coke from someone it may be laced, wether with LSD, PCP, THC, or XTC depends but how many cases have you heard, of LSD laced with PCP? Not one of the people who sell LSD are selling it to make money ($5/hit? cheapest drug that isn't free!), they are selling it to share the experience, and to expand the LSD sub-culture, which is nearly extinct anyways.

                              by: "Mortis Avery" USA 1:37pm Oct. 19, 2006
5 dollars a hit is no longer the standard market price for LSD. LSD is adulterated frequently. I have citations of field testing for this. 70.114.242.136 19:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

standard market prices: they're is no such thing as a standard market price when it's a BLACK market. LSD is anywhere from $2-15 a hit these days for "retail". depends on supply-demand dynamics. over the past 4 years (from my personal experience) i'd say the average is $6/hit. as low as $2.50 and as high as $10. i've heard up to $15. and the quality varies significantly. some of the strongest acid can be at the low end in price, and low quality very expensive, and vice versa.

as for LSD being adulterated- i think that this is misleading. i did read a DEA publication (if anyone could find the source, you get a pat on the back) that stated that the federal government has never found blotter LSD with significant traces of any adulterant- as the DEA attempted to dispel the strychnine/rat poison myth. there are many cases, however, of LSD being sold as mescaline, or some ethnogen being sold as LSD (several different chemicals can fit onto blotter and provide some mind-altering effect). so much info out there is misleading involving drugs- including the DEA's. Skewing statistics and being subjective in observation to futher the Agency's mission/agenda is commonplace... anyone with basic math skills can discount the inflated numbers they provide for "street value" of X number of kilos of cocaine/heroin/marijuana. numbers on the page should be scrutinized IMHO. LSD isn't for everyone, and i wouldn't say it's even something anyone should do- coming from someone who's experienced it time over... 66.208.25.38 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Good Example of What Happens When You Use LSD

This band is literaly based on LSD, Their strange ideas about music wouldn't exist without it. Search for: Butthole Surfers in the search box.

                                  "Mortis Avery" USA 1:42pm Oct. 19, 2006


Positive? Perhaps you need to re-read. True, LSD is not addictive, which makes it safer in some ways than, say, meth. However, it is a dangerous, mind-altering drug which is not uncommonly associated with psychotic episodes. I wouldn't stop anyone who had thought long and hard about the consequences, but LSD is not something to be taken lightly, especially as dosage is so poorly controled in black-market drugs. The difference between a slight euphoria and a world-altering maelstrom is less than a grain of sand (by a lot). -Harmil 06:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

not to mention that buying drugs from a dealer, you might not get what you bargain for, and may as well end up with pcp or a mixture of lsd, pcp and whatnot. also as has already been mentioned... there is no way of knowing what dose you get.

now i would not advice anyone to use or manufacture drugs (especially if it is illegal in your country of residence). but that would probably be the only way to "know" what you are getting, at least as long as these substances are illegal.

Also along the same theoretical line of thought. if anyone, for some reason, decided to try to manifacture a psychoactive drug (i strongly advice against actually doing so). then growing mushrooms would probably be the safest and easiest way to do so (as it doesnt require any knowledge of chemisty). also a "shroom" high is usually not easily distinguished from a LSD high, other than by its shorter duration (and would thus, in a way, be safer to ingest). --Mindzpore 18:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally, this tends not to be an issue with LSD because of the very small dosage. You can consume 50 µg of LSD and have a strong effect. In those quantities PCP would have very little or no effect (being effective in the 1-10 mg range, which is 20-200 times that of the typical LSD dosage). That's not to say that you couldn't cut LSD with PCP, but 1) there would be no point 2) it would cost the dealer money. As far as your mushrooms comment goes, yes, growing mushrooms, while still quite illegal in my country, is certainly a much safer process physically (making just about any artificial drug requires noxious chemicals). For my own purposes, having done drugs such as LSD when I was younger, I would say that there's nothing you will come away from the experience with that you could not have gotten in another (probably safer overall, if only because of the legal concequences) manner. -Harmil 18:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
While contaminated or adulterated LSD is extremely rare, the active dosage range of LSD would suggest that it would be impossible to cut. This is not strictly true as a measurement as small as 100mics itself could not be cut, but as the medium of transportation such as blotter or sugar-cubes have a larger surface area it can be cut. However physically fitting drugs with a higher active dosage range like PCP (in the milligrams)onto the medium is harder due to lack of space. This means that the choice of suitable drugs used to adulterate is limited by the factors of size/amount, availability and street price. 3dom 03:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
In the world of LSD dosages are strongly controlled. Maximum dosages are never extremely high, and at worst the buyer gets sold something too low or inactive.
It is uncommonly associated with psychotic episodes.
Psilocybin does have a totally distinguishable affect. Someone unfamiliar with LSD might think psilocybin was LSD, but anyone familiar with both can distinguish very easily.
It would be pointless to sell someone PCP and claim it was LSD or to 'cut' LSD with PCP. There wouldn't enough PCP in the dose to have any noticeable affect.
There is no substitute for any hallucinogen. Each is its own experience and there is no other truly comparable experience in the world.

The effects LSD elicits compared to mushrooms is quite substantial in my own opinion. Compared to mushrooms, LSD's hallucinatory effects are typically less intense. Mushroom's build up an extreme sense of anxiousness. The effects I have experienced to my train of thought while on mushrooms was closer to psychosis, while LSD's effects were more fluid and more in the area of expanding one's own beliefs and thoughts. Mushrooms also seem to be more prone to give the user a 'bad trip'. None of this has been researched, this is simply all my personal opinion from my own personal experiences and the experiences of my peers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.171.58 (talkcontribs) 22 March 2006

Curious. More bad trips have occurred with LSD due to its much longer duration. The longer the duration, the greater the likelyhood of a "bad" experience. I will agree that mushrooms create more of a body load, and hence may cause one to fixate on them, and also the fact that mushrooms come on much more quickly may cause one to panic (whereas the effects of acid come on much more slowly), but I would not agree that mushrooms would be more likely to induce a bad trip than LSD. --Thoric 21:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

first, im not saying that your local dealer would conciously lace the trip with PCP, im saying that he probably doesnt know whats really in them (as he gets them from someone else, who in turn gets it from someone else). and tests performed on "LSD" trips seized by the police, have sometimes proven to actually be other things (such as PCP).

second, about bad trips. the probablility of someone having a "bad" trip is not so much dependant on the drug per se, as on the users expreience, or "tripping skill". for some, shroom nausea might trigger it, for others something else. and the longer the trip... the greater the chance of something triggering a "bad" ride. then again, some people dont really mind "bad trips", but see it as a catharctic representation of latent psychological issues, and thus as a valuable learning experience. of course, this doesnt mean that anyone really wants, or strives for a "bad" trip, just that there are differences in how people deal with it(which might be regarded as a form of "skill" of "knowhow" in relation to tripping). --Mindzpore 12:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I think you're just repeating urban legend with respect to laced LSD. See above for the rationale as to why this is impactical. As for your speculation regarding "tripping skill"... well, unless you can cite your (authoritative) sources, I don't see how it's something that we could include in the article. -Harmil 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

here is a reference for "contaminated" LSD:

Stafford, P. (1992). Psychadelics Encyklopedia (3rd edition, pp.23-24). Berkeley, CA: Ronin Publishing. p23-24.

and as for the issue of trippingskill, that is an idea thats mainly based on discussions of and with experienced users of psychadelics, on several online forums (like the shroomery). but i'll try to dig up a reference.--Mindzpore 12:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, contaminated LSD is probably rarer than the rate of induced psychosis. There are very few drugs that are potent enough to have any effect when taken in the quantities of dilutant that LSD is taken in (no other common drug but LSD could be ingested in any significant quantity through blotter paper, micro-dots, or window-panes for example, and very few through a diluted solution of "liquid"...but still it would be such a rare occurence, that anyone who tries to use such scare-tactics as a detterent loses credability with any curious individuals with any capacity for statistical reasoning. Thats the kind of scare-tactic that makes graduates of police sponsored anti-drug campaigns at a slightly higher risk of becoming drug-addicts (yes, its been shown in studies)--when they figure out one piece of information they got was bull, they figure the everything else was bull too. "well, I know they exaggerated the dangers of pot and LSD, so they must be exaggerating the dangers of heroin and speed too!")Brentt 11:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The above statement is an urban myth. There are many instances of blotter paper and liquid lsd that had no LSD but instead other drugs like DOB or DOI, 5meo-amt, etc. 70.114.242.136 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The label "urban myth" is misapplied above in a complete 180-degree inversion, a phenomenon often known as the pot calling the kettle black.
An "urban myth" is a widely-held misconception accepted uncritically as true by a majority, or at least a very large portion, of the population. This describes exactly the status of the belief that LSD is frequently laced with unknown psychoactive substances that can pose a significant risk to the user, while the contrary opinion that adulteration of black market LSD is very rare is definitely one held by a minority -- an informed minority to be exact, since they are correct. But even if they were wrong, it doesn't make sense to call such a minority opinion an "urban myth", especially if it also runs counter to a dominant cultural theme like the "war on drugs".
The only "urban myth" involved here is in fact the position taken by the above author that black market LSD is commonly adulterated and potentially dangerous. This asserton qualifies as "urban myth" on every count: it holds apparent intuitive appeal, confirms cultural prejudices, is widely accepted as true throughout the population, and is stubbornly enduring and persists for years despite lack of supporting evidence and easily demonstrated implausibility.
Sample testing has repeatedly shown LSD to be almost invariably pure and unadulterated, and the most common physical formats -- blotter paper and tiny squares of gel -- could not even carry amounts of any substitute drug large enough to do harm, or do anything perceptible at all!
Yet the myth of commonly encountered "bad acid" laced with nasty things (strychnine is a popular culprit) and leading to very negative outcomes remains ubiquitous, even among people with multiple first-hand experiences with LSD, who tend to retrospectively attribute any negative aspects of their adventures to assumed impurities in the dose, usually characterized as sadly representative of our fallen era and accompanied with rueful comparisons to the glorious purity and strength of the acid our long-locked fore-fathers devoured in the golden glow of a funky Hendrix-soundtracked past. --Delysid 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Delysid

Term misuse?

A caption from the article underneath the picture of some blotter paper: "A typical full size sheet of LSD blotter paper is 900 1/4" squares."

I believe this should be changed to read "A typical full size page of LSD..." A "sheet" on the street refers to a specific amount: ten strips of ten hits each (usually arranged in a square), or 100 1/4" squares. Multiple sheets constitute a page.

Furthermore, size of a hit can vary.. some hits are as small as 1/8" square. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.203.234 (talkcontribs) 11 April 2006

Marked disagreement: the sheet you see in the picture (the yellow brick road) may appear to be 15x15, but each square breaks down into four smaller hits; here are indeed 900 hits on a typical sheet.

I believe that was the original anonymous poster was arguing is not that the image shown didn't contain 900 hits, but that the image shown was of a page, rather than a sheet. Different users, dealers, and chemists may use the same word differently. I believe the word "page" always refers to 900 hits (or some similar equivalent), but "sheet" can refer to either an entire page, or 1/9th of a page (100 hits). Further confusing things, a "book" may be a page separated into 9 (100-hit) sheets layered with something non-absorbent (900 hits), or it may be a collection of 9 or 10 pages layered in the same way. --Falcotron 22:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

LSDTherapeutic

Added an image from a 1966 MacLean's magazine, from Canada, in a section that coincides/follows the articles discussion of LSD's therapeutic uses. Thought it was an interesting example, and amusing as well. Delete it if it compromises the quality of the article, but I think it's interesting and serves as a good example. However, I am wondering about this image's copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordangordanier (talkcontribs) 22 April 2006

yess indeed but im a person who really knows about this situtation since ive had some friends that are in rehab for that unfortunately lsd took one of my friends life its a really hazardous drug.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.190.100.113 (talkcontribs) 8 May 2006
I'm also a person who really knows about this situation, because I have had a friend (really, it wasn't me) who dropped three tabs he bought from the Russian mafia, sat in a park and read Thomas Pynchon's V. He says it made perfect sense. . . . Anville 15:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Having tried LSD twice, I believe that one cannot truly understand the drug, unless they have experienced it. In the hands of the wrong person, any drug can be bad news (this is how most drugs became illegal in the first place; misuse by individuals of less than stellar common sense). But anyone who follows the 'rules' so-to-speak, will generally come back from an LSD trip with a better understanding of themself or the world around them. -67.84.176.234 22:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Added a link

And hope to not have it screwed up. Sorry if I did, since I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia, but figured that the Age link, added at the very end of the media section adds value to the article. Feel free to remove or email me at bin at coda dot ch. CaptainZapp 18:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

?

What kind of drug is this? stimulant? depressant? opiate? hallucinogen? so confused IThink4u 02:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The psychoactive drug page should help you with that. LSD is legally classified as a hallucinogen, although that term is too broad for the specific actions of LSD. Hence the term psychedelic. LSD also tends to have stimulant properties (for example, most people cannot sleep or some even relax while under its effects). --Thoric 21:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph

I just removed the following from the physical effects section. Can anyone make heads or tails of it?

Obscure [2006]. Seventeen seated United States senators are implanted with an invasive 'radiation based' neuroprosthetic technology - electrode[s] on the hypothalamus and microscopic wire in the dura or on the inner surface of the skull, which is capable of monitoring and stimulating neural impulse from remote locations [a hardware interface reassembling the feedback in a useable data product on a 'realtime' basis]. LSD is used to mitigate the long term negative effect of the radiation on the brain, though as age and exposure profiles are not uniform some disparity in consumption is anticipated.

-GTBacchus(talk) 23:02, May 24, 2006


Then this: [2] -GTBacchus(talk) 23:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my. Anville 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

pharmacological section

I think the subsection "effects - pharmacological" should be renamed to "effects - pharmacodynamical", because it handles only the molecular interactions, and not the pharmacokinetics. Secondly, as these molecular actions are the mechanisms that cause all the effects ("physical", "psychological", "sensory"...), I think that this subsection should be the first in the Effects section, BEFORE describing the consequences of the molecular interactions (following a logic order). I will change this unless anyone has arguments against this proposition.--Dr. Friendly 12:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. Anville 15:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

A citation is needed for one or more of the following claims:

"There is also some indication that LSD may trigger a dissociative fugue state in individuals who are taking certain classes of antidepressants such as lithium salts and tricyclics. In such a state, the user has an impulse to wander, and may not be aware of his or her actions, which can lead to physical injury. SSRIs are believed to interact more benignly, with a tendency to significantly reduce LSD's subjective effects. MAOIs, on the other hand, may increase LSD's subjective effects, particularly those effects which are experienced as 'negative'." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.186.213 (talkcontribs)

I believe I've taken care of this. Anville 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Note on Names

The list of "common names" seems to be suspiciously large: "LSD is sold under a wide variety of street names including Acid, 'Cid, Sid, A, Animal, Barrels, Bartman, Bart Simpson, Battery Acid, Beast, Big D, Black Acid, Black Star, Black Sunshine, Black Tabs, Blotter, Blotter Acid, Blotter Cube, Blue Acid, Blue Barrels, Blue Chairs, Blue Cheers, Blue Heaven, Blue Microdot, Blue Mist, Blue Moons, Blue Star, Blue Vials, Brown Bombers, Brown Dots, California Sunshine, Cap, Chief, Chocolate Chips, Coffee, Conductor, Contact Lens, Crackers, Crystal Tea, Cubes, Cupcakes, D, Deeda, Domes, Dots, Double Dome, Doses, Electric Kool-Aid, Fields, Flash, Flat Blues, Gelatin Chips, Ghost, Golden Dragon, Goofy's, Grape Parfait, Green Double Domes, Green Single Domes, Green Wedge, Grey Shields, Hats, Hawaiian Sunshine, Hawk, Haze, Headlights, Heavenly Blue, Hits, Instant Zen, L, LBJ, Lason Sa Daga, Lens, Lime Acid, Liquid, Liquid A, Loony Toons, Lucy, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, Lysergide, Mellow Yellow, Mickey's, Microdots, Mighty Quinn, Mind Detergent, One Way, Optical Illusions, Orange Barrels, Orange Cubes, Orange Haze, Orange Micro, Orange Wedges, Owsley, Owsley's acid, Pane, Paper, Paper Acid, Peace, Peace Tablets, Pearly Gates, Pellets, Pink Blotters, Pink Owsley, Pink Panther, Pink Robots, Pink Wedge, Pink Witches, Potato, Pure Love, Purple Barrels, Purple Flats, Purple Haze, Purple Hearts, Purple Ozoline, Recycle, Royal Blues, Russian Sickles, Sacrament, Sandoz, Smears, Snowmen, Squirrel, Strawberries, Strawberry Fields, Sugar, Sugar Cubes, Sugar Lumps, Sunshine, Tabs, Tail Lights, Ticket, Trips, Twenty-Five, Vodka Acid, Wedding bells, Wedges, White Dust, White Lightning, White Owsley's, Window Glass, Windowpane, Yellow, Yellow Dimples, Yellow Sunshine, Zen, and Zig Zag Man, as well as names that reflect the designs on the sheets of blotter paper."

Only a few of these names are supported by the citation: Honig, David. Frequently Asked Questions via Erowid. (Those few names are: "Acid, 'Cid, Sid, Bart Simpsons, Barrels, Tabs, Blotter, Heavenly blue, "L", Liquid, Liquid A, Lucy in the sky with diamonds, Microdots, Mind detergent, Orange cubes, Orange micro, Owsley, Hits, Paper acid, Sacrament, Sandoz, Sugar, Sugar lumps, Sunshine, Tabs, Ticket, Twenty-five, Wedding bells, Windowpane, etc.") It seems to me that the rest of the common names are superfluous at best, unless they can be verified properly. At the very least, then, additional citations are required here. Wowbobwow12 17:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I've gone ahead and deleted the uncited names. Wowbobwow12 02:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, think having that many names in the article is just totally uncalled for. Thanks for solving that problem.--Ddhix 2002 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe many of those names come from law enforcement lists which tend to be overly extensive, and contain a lot of cross contamination from other drugs. BTW, I have heard/read the term "trips" used far more frequently than "wedding bells". There's a huge difference between a name used to describe a specific series of blotter, and the slang terminology used to refer to the drug itself. --Thoric 22:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Time to expand this article into multiple articles?

This is a fantastic article of featured article quality and status, but has the time come to split this article up and expand it into more detailed sub-articles? The current size of this article (56K) is well over the proposed 32K article size limit. I could easily see the History, Effects and possibly even Production sections expanded into separate articles of their own, and this article containing a summary of those articles. The alcohol and cannabis articles certain span over quite a number related sub-articles. The LSD article certainly shares the same potential. --Thoric 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, but I myself question whether the proposed article size limit is going to stand the next year or so. My worry with splitting articles is always that, although it's certainly easy to open two or three windows and examine each article for duplication, that usually doesn't happen. In my experience, article quality declines with a split. Maybe hold off on this idea for a while (which I note you've done, since it's from July) and see what direction Wiki and this article takes? --Fr. Wolf 1330hrs, 27 Dec 2006 (EST)

Two sections

Hello,

I think this article needs two new sections: first, a discussion of "bad trips", and second, a bit on neurochemistry, insofar as it's known. Anyone qualified to give it a whirl? Graft 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

pov check

pov check for possible down play of negative effects

Agreed.

Smiles notation

I generated the SMILES notation for it using an organic chemistry program, if you are interested in including it, it is "CCN(CC)C(=O)C1\C=C2\c4cccc3N\C=C(\CC2C(C)C1)c34"

Reversing the effects

The sentence Anecdotal reports indicate that administration of chlorpromazine (Thorazine) or similar typical antipsychotic tranquilizers will not end an LSD trip, but rather will just immobilize and numb the patient. comes out of no where. It should be preceded by something along the lines of Standard medical treatment to reverse the effects of LSD is {dose} of chlorpromazine (Thorazine). Can some one find a source that states this? This paragraph should be cited. --Cornlad 14:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

But the evidence claims that Thorazine doesn't end the trip. So why would the sentence be changed to something that states otherwise? -67.84.176.234 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I added some more descriptive information about the effect Niacin has on ending an LSD trip. Please modify if you disagree.

---

I added an early cite for the failure of chlorpromazine to fully reverse LSD effects. I also added a reference and slightly modified the discussion of Niacin, which I am still uneasy with. My understanding of the literature is that the ability of niacin to reduce LSD effects is disputed and may be largely via an active placebo effect. --Mattbagg 06:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that you have improved on the descriptive information about the effect Niacin has on ending an LSD trip and I trust the reference helps. I must say that Niacin, frankly, seems to put the "brakes" on an LSD trip and somehow ends the "effect" relatively quickly. There may be everything from a subjective effect: commonly thought of as a placebo effect whereby there is a feeling of "coming down", to an objective effect: the dilation of blood vessels somehow counters the physiological effects of LSD. I would hazard that this descriptive information concerning Niacin has not been deleted because a concensus of readers that read this do not strongly disagree with this. Sep. 15, 06:15:34 UTC

Cite, cite, cite

Sorry all, but there is so much (good) information in this article that is simply anecdotal without being cited. Wikipedia is not a place for original compositions. Maybe the test of time has meant that enough people agree with this info to not delete it, but people who read this will accept it as the truth. See verifiability --Cornlad 14:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While there may indeed be alot of information that can be cited in this article any article on illegal drugs will have a hard time finding reliable sources. Information available on marijuana for instance, differs highly in the US than it does in Europe. Almost all Government related information on drugs is incorrect, and being illegal makes it hard for scientists to find accurate answers. So where does one turn for accurate, reliable information on drugs? Unfortunately this falls onto the individual users... -67.84.176.234 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Forms of LSD

I changed On occasion, authorities have encountered the drug in other forms — including powder or crystal, and capsule — and laced on other substances to On occasion, authorities have encountered the drug in other forms — including powder or crystal, and capsule. since (a) lacing isn't really a form of LSD... examples of substances?? (b) lacing may be urban legend/public scare tactic, especially without citation. --Cornlad 14:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Testing

Does anyone know what testing they use to reveal a user of LSD? How long it lasts in your system? This information may have a place in the article (and I need it for a story, and since wikipedia is always my first reference...)Daemon8666 21:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The answer is in the archive. See testing and ErowidViriditas | Talk 21:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
My bad. Thanks for setting me straight.Daemon8666 02:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pickard and Apperson

According to the article:

In November of 2003, Pickard and Apperson were sentenced to two life sentences and two 30-year sentences, respectively, after being convicted in Federal Court of running a large scale LSD manufacturing operation out of several clandestine laboratories, including a former missile silo near Wamego, Kansas.

However, at the DEA's web site ( http://www.dea.gov/pubs/states/newsrel/sanfran112403.html ):

Pickard was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Apperson was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment without parole.

Substatually different sentences (both excessive by any standard). Which is factually correct?

Jake b 22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Made the correction 67.42.94.9 01:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

nicknames

This list will have to be cited. We generally don't have such lists because they don't work particularly well; everybody adds their favrite name in use by them and their three friends in the middle of nowhere. So if we are going to have such a list, each and every addition is going to have to be cited. (see also talk:psychedelic mushroom, particularly the sections on slang and list of names.) --heah 19:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Effects on Heart Rate

The conventional wisdom on LSD is that its amphetamine-like effects cause an increase in heart rate. I would agree, based on my own experience with the drug. However, I stumbled upon this:


Source: An Introduction to Pharmacology 3rd edition, JJ Lewis, 1964 (p 385)

Peripheral Actions These include an oxytocic action and constriction of the blood vessels of isolated vascular beds. In intact animals LSD causes a fall in blood pressure, but its adrenergic blocking potency is low.

LSD causes mydriasis in man and other species. It also causes hyperglycaemia and mydriasis, has a hyperthermic action and causes piloerection. These effects are sympathetic in nature and are abolished by ganglion blocking or adrenergic blocking agents. Parasympathetic effects include salivation, lachyrmation, vomiting, hypotension, and brachycardia. Low doses stimulate respiration but larger doses depress it.



Brachycardia would indicate a lowering of heart rate instead of an elevation, contradicting general opinion. Can anyone substantiate/deny Mr. Lewis' above claim? If not, I also request a citation after the first paragraph in the "physical effects" section.

Cheers -



Doses in animals and humans are often very different and can have different effects. Graham and Khalidi (1954) reported that 100 ug oral LSD increased heart rate increasing by an average of 10 bpm in 12 human volunteers. This is a relatively modest change. --Mattbagg 06:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note: LSD is definitely a stimulating drug (in terms of heart rate and blood pressure increases), but it is not like amphetamine. LSD is based on tryptamine, while amphetamine is based on phenethylamine, a distinct class of drugs. -Muugokszhiion 19:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't the name be changed to "Lysergic acid diethylamide" since this is about the chemical, and not... well... anything else...? (Please respond on my talk page.) tinlv7 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How Do I Take LSD? I need to know for a science project

Eat it (if on a sugar cube, blotter paper, some edible medium). 67.84.176.234 05:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Odorless

LSD is in fact, not odorless as sniffer dogs can still be trained to detect it. here is a site that sells Pseudo LSD (mimics the smell) to train dogs.

http://www.leerburg.com/lsdform.htm and he is another website stating it has an odor.

http://www.norml.org.nz/article78.html

The dogs can now detect drugs such as Ecstasy, methamphetamine (speed) and even LSD, which were previously thought not to give off an odour. Cannabis, which gives off a strong smell, has previously been the main target of drug dogs.

~ AuraithX

It stands, pure LSD has no smell at all. If the drug-odor-mixturesindeed work (which I slightly doubt) then it is the smell of impuritiesfrom the synthesis or from degradation. Cacycle 20:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, LSD is odorless. 70.114.242.136 19:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
since we've determined this, i pulled the dog thing back out (graf 3.) Anthony Citrano 07:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
First, a molecule the size of LSD is far to heavy to have an odour, its molecular weight is almost 18 times that of water that is also odourless (if you think rain has a smell thats because it takes dirt out of the air as it falls)
Second, speed is amphetamine not methamphetaminewhich is also known as Ice
Molecular weight is not a criterium for having an odour or not, having receptors in the nose that send electical signals to your brain is. The other criterium is volatility, and though molecules with a larger molecular weight do tend to have a lower volatility, a) they still are volatile, and b) you only need a couple of molecules to reach the receptors (or even, a bit of powder in form of an aerosol). But per User:Cacycle and User:70.114.242.136, I tend to believe that there are no receptors for LSD in the nose? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

the Detection dog article needs a lot of work if anyone's interested. --24.213.177.161 04:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Once more effects on heart rate

It came to my knowledge the case of someone who had to be deeply sedate beacause on intense tachycardia (200 bpm) during a bad trip on LSD. Doctors said he could have easily had a heart attack or stroke. Does medical literature cite such cases? Should the article mention it?Knights who say ni 22:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that specific example, but LSD definitely dose elevate the heart rate. When people completely freak out, and have a panic attack, for example, the heart works overtime and it can definitely cause problems. I'm sure there could be some examples out there, but it's doubtful that many are accessible to the public (most are probably in medical records). -Muugokszhiion 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

More "global perspective" needed in legal status section

The "legal status" section currently focusses about 80% on the USA. We could use some more "global perspective" here. WP:BIAS. Thanks - 201.51.221.66 12:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's some UK links and some sample text. The page is currently semi-protected, so I'm unwilling to edit right now.

UK Government site with information

England and Wales

In England and Wales, LSD is a Class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. People possessing LSD could be imprisoned for seven years, or receive an unlimited fine, or both. People dealing LSD could be imprisoned for life, or receive an unlimited fine, or both.

DanBeale 20:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cost

How much does it cost? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Right Honourable (talkcontribs) 06:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Intravenous Vs. Other Methods

Does it take a significantly less amount of time for LSD to take effect when administered intravenously? If so, do we have sources describing the specific amount of time? I understand that LSD administered orally will take about 30 to 90 minutes to take effect, and it struck me as odd that something so potent would take so long to affect the user. Naturally, I assume that injecting it directly into the blood stream will cause a quicker reaction, but I am not sure. 71.213.101.140 07:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

90 minutes seems to be around the average time for oral ingestion. I've never heard of 30 minutes before. As for IV use, I think this might have been addressed on this page or in the archives. —Viriditas | Talk 13:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Size/detail

Is this an article, or a dumping ground for all the information specialists of this particular field know? Typically an article of such size is filled with unnecessary detail. Cutting it down to size and complete removal of information and sections might help the article's problems. Colonel Marksman 06:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

SMILES

The old SMILES was not for L-isolysergic acid diethylamide as I said before. That was a mistake. Anyway, the new one was made using the latest version of ChemDraw, so I believe it is more appropriate. Synthetihkal 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Significant Personality/Life Perspective Changes

It doesn't take much research to find that many people are dramatically affected by their experience with LSD - see quotes from users, see spiritual uses, etc. Yet the language gets killed occasionally. The whole LSD story is painfully incomplete without acknowledgment of this. Can those of you who've deleted it explain your reasoning? Thanks. Anthony Citrano 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Health Effects

Overall, LSD appeared to have comparatively few adverse health consequences, of which "bad trips" were the most commonly reported (and, the researchers found, one of the chief reasons youths stop using the drug).[5

I am a little confused and disgruntled by this statement. I have a lot of doubts as the validity of

having comparitively few adverse health consequences

as I know for a fack that death can easly result, furthemore it seems that this source may only relate to the cheif reason why people stop LSD in which case it is important to split the sentences up as not to give the wrong impression. If the source says that LSD appears to indead have few adverse health consequences then the source can not be trusted as LSD is infact a very dangerous drug and should be removed.

--Frozenport 03:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but the fact that a source disagrees with your personal views is not a valid indictment of the source's reliability on Wikipedia. --FOo 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Gotta agree there, I am studying chemistry and there is nothing incorrect about the above statement. LSD has a low health risk. Travsuth 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
i think you'd be hard pressed to find one source stating that LSD was the direct cause of death. now taking LSD then preceeding to jump out a window because you think you can fly, is something totally different, and i think that is the danger you are refering to. yet, it is gravity that causes the negative health effect there, not LSD.

...and...to all you trippers, if you think you can fly, start from the ground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.46.0.13 (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

People dying from the direct pharmacological effects of LSD is unheard of. Even people taking tremendous doses (upwards of 100 milligrams, or 100,000 micrograms) have survived. That's not to say that their conscience is always totally intact afterwards, but they're still alive. The only death I've ever heard of was someone (probably with a pre-existing heart condition) who mainlined 750,000 micrograms and died. However, that story is probably fictitious. There have been people who have done silly things while on LSD (like jumping off of tall objects and killing themselves), but the drug LSD hasn't killed anyone at any sane dose. -Muugokszhiion 19:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Detail cut from lead

I have cut the following, which is too detailed for the lead (the lead should summarise the article, not be the place for detail not found elsewhere, or to duplicate detail that is found elsewhere). I will work it into an appropriate part of the body of the article when I have time:

"While a typical single dose of LSD is between 100 and 500 micrograms—an amount roughly equal to one-tenth the mass of a grain of sand—threshold effects can be felt with as little as 20 micrograms.
The effects can vary greatly depending on factors such as previous experiences, state of mind and environment, as well as dose strength. Generally, LSD causes expansion and altered experience of senses, emotions, memories, time, and awareness for 6 to 14 hours, depending on dosage and tolerance. It often leads to disintegration of the historical personality and potentially new imprints. In addition, LSD may produce visual effects such as moving geometric patterns, brilliant colors and "trails" behind moving objects. LSD does not produce hallucinations in the strict sense, but instead illusions and vivid daydream-like fantasies, in which ordinary objects and experiences take on entirely different appearances or meanings. At higher doses it can cause synesthesia and other major cognitive shifts. An LSD trip can have long term psychoemotional effects; some users cite the LSD experience as causing significant changes in their personality and life perspective."

Metamagician3000 09:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've now reincorporated the first of the snipped paras - though it is not wholly consisent with what is in the relevant section of the article itself. I've reconciled as well as I could without doing further research. Metamagician3000 09:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
And now the last sentence of the second para. Metamagician3000 09:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
All done now - all detail from lead now massaged in elsewhere. I hope I've left an adequate trail of my actions for anyone who wants to build on them (or dispute them). Metamagician3000 09:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting its FA back?

This seems much too good to languish as B class for long. Let's see what we can do to get it its FA status back. Metamagician3000 12:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed every "citation needed" tag save one (concerning flashbacks and PTSD). There probably remain several statements which need footnoting. Concerns raised on FAR include the following:

  • Prune "external links", which has become quite the untidy link farm, as well as the "see also" section.
  • Convert citations to proper format, including PMIDs for medical journal articles, date of last access and so forth.
  • Cite remaining unsupported statements. The {{cn}} tags put on this article seemed to be applied rather haphazardly; I was able to address most of them using sources already provided in the article, and I'm sure more significant assertions passed unremarked.
  • Remove weasel words.
  • Remove or paraphrase text copied directly from US Government website (unfortunately, the reviewer didn't say where this text was).

I think that's about everything. Oh, yes, we should also figure out what text belongs in the "History" section of this article and what should go into History of LSD. Anville 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found one section copied directly from the DEA (the first paragraph of "Production"). It's fixed now. Anville 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Great work. I like to work on de-FA's articles that I have a vague interest in, even if I lack the expertise to do more than polish them up a bit. I'll come back later and see if there is any more polishing I can do. Metamagician3000 00:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried to straighten out the "Flashbacks and HPPD" sub-section. It's a little cleaner and somewhat more referenced than before. More work is necessary in that corner; the reference I found is probably a good starting point. Anville 18:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Great. Metamagician3000 07:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I will (if there are no objections) start to prune the external links. I think that most of them except for the ones in the "academic" section are superfluous and could be considered spam, so I think that only the links in the academic section and a few others should stay. Agreed? Jolb 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Just make sure not to remove ones that are exceptionally good. I think the reviewer was a little over-critical about the external links. Yes, there are too many, but they are not what I'd consider to be link-spam. --Thoric 07:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Micrograms or µg?

At the moment, we are not consistent about whether we write "µg" or spell it out as "micrograms". I prefer to spell it out, for the sake of accessibility, but I'm pleased to defer to other views. What do people think? Metamagician3000 07:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm used to seeing unit names abbreviated, so I find spelling out "micrograms" a little odd. However, "µg" looks just plain ugly in WP typesetting (LaTeX has spoiled me bad). Given the choice here, I'd probably go for spelling out the unit. Anville 19:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else? Or do we go with this? Metamagician3000 12:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Though I personally prefer abbreviated unit names, "micrograms" looks much better in prose than "µg." The accessibility matter clinches it for me. —SirPavlova 12:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I support using "micrograms," for reasons stated by SirPavlova. —Old american century 03:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This is starting to look like a consensus. Let's implement it. Metamagician3000 07:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


I wonder when A microgram (A thousandth of a gram) became A millionth of a gram

I have no desire to change it, but It's very incorrect. A millionth of a gram (nano gram If I'm not mistaken) is only discernable with an electron microscope Therubicon 00:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A milligram is a thousandth of a gram and a microgram is one millionth of a gram, the article is correct. Cacycle 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, a nanogram is a billionth of a gram. --Thoric 17:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SOMETHING TO BE ADDED (i hope)

the article state the best treatment for a bad trip to be diazipam, while taking calcium is accually much better. a few glasses of milk (or in some cases 7 or 8) will bring you back down to baseline in less than half an hour, usually about 15 minutes...or..ummm...so i've heard;). i've tried looking for creditable sources to defend this claim for about an hour and a half but, to no avail. if anyone could find creditable source so this little fact could be added that would be great! people really should know this EXTREMELY USEFULL bit of info.

thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.46.0.13 (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

I doubt that milk could have such a substantial effect, but benzodiazepines are frequently used by medical professionals in non life-threatening overdose cases (such as LSD, psilocybin, et al). I have seen diazepam used, but shorter-acting benzos are common as well. I believe that some of the negative effects of hallucinogens are simply produced or exacerbated by temporary hypoglycemia as a result of not eating. A sugary drink (like juice) can help fix that. Maybe this could explain the mechanism of what you're describing, because milk contains sugars and protein. -Muugokszhiion 19:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It makes no sense to speculate about mechanisms when there is not the slightest evidence that home remedies such as sugar, calcium, or milk alleviate the effects of hallucinogens. It is just a stupid rumor, albeit with a pretty long history. Cacycle 17:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Benzodiazepines are also used post-Ibogaine treatment to calm the user down and lessen the Ibogaines side effects. --87.194.3.52 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To Be Added (Advanced Pharmalogical Effects)

(copyrighted text removed)

Could someone go over these quotes from www.shroomery.com and see if it deserves to be added to the LSD article

oh and by the way Milk doesn't work , its more of a placebo effect same with calcium both methods tried and tested by me,

The text above contained many factual errors. Please do not use it as a source for additions to the Wikipedia article. The text had to be removed because no permission was provided to copy it here. Cacycle 02:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous addition

pain killers such as Xanax really do help to calm you down during a rapid onset or a difficult experience —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nas187 (talkcontribs) 07:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

In the ER, anxiolytics (particularly benzodiazepines such as Xanax and Ativan) are frequently administered to calm down a patient who "overdosed" on hallucinogens. However, in the absence of medical supervision, using pharmaceutical drugs like Xanax can be risky, because most people seem to be unfamiliar with dosage and side-effects. ER treatment of LSD "overdose" could be included in the article with the appropriate citation. -Muugokszhiion 19:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection

I have semi-protected the page for one day to allow this heavily vandalized page being restored to a vandalism-free version. The best strategy to do this is to find a vandalism-free version in the history and then add all non-vandal edits back in. Cacycle 13:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all vandalism, copyedited, and fully reviewed the current version [3]. Cacycle 02:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, great work! Metamagician3000 11:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove the stiflng "protection" now?

Move to full name

I notice this article has been moved from LSD to Lysergic acid diethylamide. Is that a good move? It seems to go against WP:COMMONNAME, but there might be a good reason to do that. Opinions? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was relaxed about it, but I would have preferred the original name, i.e. LSD. As long as a redirect is in place there's no practical difference for users. Metamagician3000 23:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Most drugs are under their real name, at least if other meanings for their abbreviation exist and/or the chemical name is not too esoteric. Cacycle 01:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a dablink to the page, pointing readers to LSD (disambiguation) if they were looking for some other meaning. That should take care of any confusion that might arise. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

mixing pot and acid

has anyone heard of pot and acid being mixed, they seem to be used by the same people ? The Right Honourable 02:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Mixed, you mean like using pot while on acid, or like somehow mixing them into a form so you ingest them together? I've never heard of the latter, but the former is certainly common enough. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The latter is also quite impossible.. Let The Sunshine In 12:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
One could make cookies or brownies with the cannabis and then dose the finished product with liquid LSD, but that's a rather contrived way to combine the drugs. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah you're right. I was thinking about smokable cannabis.. Let The Sunshine In 17:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
i meant the former, but i have heard of people smoking lsd blotter tabs, i just swollow themThe Right Honourable 02:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Did it work for them? Let The Sunshine In 17:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparenlty yes, but not as strong as eatingThe Right Honourable 07:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Smoking marijuana while under the effects of almost any hallucinogen, LSD included, typically extends the duration of the trip by several hours and substantially magnifies and potentiates the effect of the hallucinogen. Mixing the two is very common, although for some users the combination is overwhelming and panic-inducing. -Muugokszhiion 19:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hyperthermia?

Is this edit correct, replacing hypothermia with hyperthermia is a list of possible physical effects of LSD? I've never heard that either is associated with the drug, but I'm no expert either. There's no source given for that whole paragraph. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

LSD often does raise body temperature (its pretty stimulating), but for most people at reasonable doses it shouldn't be enough to induce serious hyperthermia. Psilocybin, on the other hand, seems to decrease body temperature for some users (see torpor), which can make people feel cold, especially as it kicks in. -Muugokszhiion 19:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably because Psilocybin doesn't have any affect on adrenorecptors, while LSD does.

Dubious: Ergine

According to the articles Ipomoea tricolor and Ergine, it is doubious whether the active substance of Morning Glory is really ergine. --Eleassar my talk 12:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that these plants contain several lysergic acid amides, the big question is: which of them is responsible for the psychoactive effects. Cacycle 13:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course. This should be made clear in the article. --Eleassar my talk 13:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


The funny thing about LSD is ,if you know where to look you can find it rather easily .I always heard about shortages and such but its simply not true.I live on the east coast and buy it about 2 times a year .I usaully get about 20 to stock up as it is only offered/available at certain times.

I plan certain days with a small group of friends ,like tommorrow "Earth Day " were going!! for memorable experiences.Its hard to describe to someone who doesn't understand how valuable,and fond i reflect on past LSD trips.Sure when younger i have had a few bad ones but it was usaully poor planning ,mood or mixing with something else.

When used sparingly every once in awhile ,you gain self perspective and a totally different view of possiblilties ,thoughts ,ideas.

It has shaped the way i look at life ,and can be quite profoud. But to say its harmless ,ahh well .I Remember seeing the Deadheads on tour ,alot of them really burnt out ,heavy use can blow your mind like a speaker.

But to say the least it has shaped me as a free thinker.

Signed,

Tripping tommorrow
male age 33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.130 (talkcontribs) 22:16, April 20, 2007

Grammar correction

I noticed the use of "Although,...." instead of "However,...." as in this sentence:

Although, this is the same percentage of people in general society who suffer from psychosis[citation needed].

The corrected sentence should read:

However, this is the same percentage of people in general society who suffer from psychosis[citation needed].

This is a common mistake. Some people seem to believe the grammar to be correct, because they've seen it in so many places. It's still considered incorrect by most grammarians, as far as I know. It's certainly distracting for us grammar geeks out here. 24.10.88.52 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacokinetics?

The paragraph "pharmacokinetics" describes largely pharmacodynamics of the substance. Author(s) should clarify their nomenclature in pharmacology...--84.163.72.177 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and change it, it's a wiki and everybody can improve it. Cacycle 16:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nor-LSD

Does Nor-LSD (LSD without the 6 methyl group) exist, and if it does, what are its effects?The Right Honourable 01:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

nor-LSD is essentially inactive in rat drug discrimination (Synthesis and LSD-like discriminative stimulus properties in a series of N(6)-alkyl norlysergic acid N,N-diethylamide derivatives A. J. Hoffman, D. E. Nichols, J. Med. Chem. 28(9): 1252 - 1255 (1985)). Cacycle 04:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Blotter paper

The article says that LSD is frequently putted into perforated paper. How, exactly, is this done? And how do you get the drug out of the paper? - Face 19:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

LSD is put on the paper by soaking the paper in a solution of LSD. Users get the drug out of the paper by putting a small square of the paper into their mouths, usually under the tongue. It is absorbed through the mucous membrane of the mouth, rather than swallowed. --FOo 05:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Paper is soaked in a solution and dried. Blotters are then simply swallowed. Cacycle 13:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
So you actually swallow it? Is it eatable paper or something? - Face 21:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Surprisingly enough, a piece of paper about one square centimeter in area does not have a substantial effect on the human digestive system. --FOo 06:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Improvements foo

This page would be improved greatly if the mentionof the history of Operation Judy, an operation in South wales during the 1970's which found a mansion housing a lab which was producing 60% of the world's supply of LSD and colsed it down, etc.


To be honest, I can't be bothered toedit this page, maybe some other day; hey, where are my donuts?

Some day....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Julie

Lol , that page needs to be updated too. I'l do that, maybe on thursday... yeah, thursday.....

Awesome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.205.147 (talkcontribs) 21:54, 31 Jul 2007 (UTC)