5 ms·

Your last paragraph contradicts your first -- top athletes doping do get performance gains, while your first paragraph seems to indicate you don't think that sm

Your last paragraph contradicts your first -- top athletes doping do get performance gains, while your first paragraph seems to indicate you don't think that small doses of LSD are effective (for the people taking them). I get you might be against performance enhancing drugs wholesale, but there's nothing "inherently wrong" with taking a chemical to perform better. If anything, it should be a personal choice, like working longer hours or taking a higher risk job.

M_Grey 10y ago
>There's nothing inherently wrong with the drug, but there's something inherently wrong with the behavior around it, by people who are so desperate for edge. Down that road ultimately lies Lance Armstrong, and East German women with beards. In other words, if you're desperate for an edge and willing to spend money, compromise your health and integrity for it, then you'll eventually move on from expensive bullshit like copper bands, to blood doping (in the case of sports). Right now, with the state of the "art", you're mostly just hurting yourself, but I think it's reasonable to assume that given the money and interest, it will be determined which drugs/methods do yield actual results. If the attitude remains the same, "Anything for an edge," then when that comes you're going to be screwed as a group.
- AndrewKemendo 10y ago
  compromise your health and integrity for it Why is microdosing LSD compromising integrity?
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    I would say not at all, your health on the other hand, is very much an open question people are now endeavoring to answer with their own lives.
    - csp256 10y ago
      Thankfully an entire generation of users has helped answer the question of whether or not LSD is safe.
- fsiefken 10y ago
  Why is microdosing LSD compromising health? There is no evidence for that
  - kordless 10y ago
    Asking questions of dissonance leads to more dissonance. :)
  - drwl 10y ago
    I'm not sure there is or isn't evidence but if you study the brain I think you can come to some plausible conclusions that it does compromise health to some extent.
    - mixedCase 10y ago
      Can you go into a little more detail? I have never heard anything like that. While it is just anecdote, the first person to synthesize the drug (and use it, and later practiced microdosing), Albert Hofmann, died from heart attack at the ripe age of 102 with a healthy mind.
      - drwl 10y ago
        Sure. This is just a higher level overview of the brain, I'm sure there are experts who can dive deeper into this matter. The brain is an extremely delicate organ, or atleast that's what I would consider it. It relies on maintaining balance and uses negative feedback. In an effort to regulate brain activity, your brain will do things like down-regulation as an effort to bring your high activity brain (while on lsd) to a more normal level. I haven't looked into exactly what happens with LSD besides that it acts on serotonergic pathways, but sustained high activity can also lead to cell death.
    - fsiefken 10y ago
      Conclusions? You mean 'ways'... the only way I know of - apart from individuals not prone to developing schizophrenia - is taking a lethal dose. The LD50 in humans has not been established but it might be similar to nicotine, around 10 mg/kg. While acid is cheap, it's a few hundreds times more then the typical dosage (40 micrograms). Albert Hoffmann writes in "LSD, my problem child": "The LD50 for the mouse amounts to 50-60 mg/kg IV (that is 50 to 60 thousandths of a gram of LSD per kilogram of animal weight upon injection of an LSD solution in the veins). In the rat the LD50 drops to 16.5 mg/kg, and in rabbits to 0.3 mg/kg. One elephant given 0.297 g of LSD died after a few minutes. The weight of this animal was determined to be 5,000 kg, which corresponds to a lethal dose of 0.06 mg/kg (0.06 thousandths of a gram per kilogram of bodyweight). Most animals die from a lethal dose of LSD by respiratory arrest. The minute doses that cause death in animal experiments may give the impression that LSD is a very toxic substance. However, if one compares the lethal dose in animals with the effective dose in human beings, which is 0.0003-0.001 mg/kg (0.0003 to 0.001 thousandths of a gram per kilogram of bodyweight), this shows an extraordinarily low toxicity for LSD. Only a 300- to 600-fold overdose of LSD, compared to the lethal dose in rabbits, or fully a 50,000- to 100,000-fold overdose, in comparison to the toxicity in the mouse, would have fatal results in human beings. These comparisons of relative toxicity are, to be sure, only understandable as estimates of orders of magnitude, for the determination of the therapeutic index (that is, the ratio between the effective and the lethal dose), is only meaningful within a given species. Such a procedure is not possible in this case because the lethal dose of LSD for humans is not known."
- SCHiM 10y ago
  I get why an athlete that uses drugs for an edge can be considered to be compromising their integrity. But how does that translate to micro dosing LSD while working? (regardless of it being effective or not).
- ramy_d 10y ago
  I just wanted to add nootropics to the conversation. They weren't mentioned in the article which is weird because it would fit as a legal substitute within the behavior. I don't know anything about it though.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  It only compromises your integrity if you're claiming that you're not doing it -- in my experience, most people microdosing LSD don't brag about how they're not doping. Lance Armstrong, however.... I personally am on the fence about LSD microdosing (and relatedly, most nootropics). There's evidence on both sides and much of it likely comes down to personal psychology and physiology. I think we are going to have to accept the future where unenhanced humans are (largely) obsolete at the top (say, 0.1% or 0.01%), though: if it's not drugs, then it'll be cybernetic implants. I think we might actually agree at a deeper level, and disagree how to address it: you seem to be interested in regulating the actions of people to prevent a tragedy of the commons situation, while I think we need to change the fundamentally exploitative economic structure that's precipitating the tragedy; I think both of us are more concerned with the coercive aspect of the problem than that people are doping. I don't want people to be desparate for an edge, but I also think people have a fundamental right to burn brighter for less time if they want to. But I don't like the ratcheting of that becoming necessary for survival any more than you do.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    It definitely sounds like I want to regulate, but for all that I see these as problems, I see prohibition and the usual course of hamfisted regulation as even worse. I accept that people have varied natures and drives, and some will seek edges to the point of self-destruction. Of course, some few will find real edges and prosper too. I would dream of the kind of solution you're talking about... changing the landscape, but it's hard to imagine that happening in a positive way anytime soon. You're right in your conclusion about the right of people to push themselves, even to destruction. Imagine if the Curies had been told to quit with the experimentation by modern Health and Safety?! The problem is... Japan. Look at what it's like to work in Japan. They have all of these ideas about what you need to do to be working "110%" (roughly translated). You stay late, leave after the boss, drink like a fish, and a bunch of other things that largely do not improve life or productivity. If the search for an edge were not so tightly bound with how work cultures change, permanently, it would be less of a concern. Still, the solution, whatever it may be, is not regulating essential freedoms.
- api 10y ago
  You mentioned health which is a valid concern, but integrity? It depends on the context of course but saying this generally invokes naturalistic fallacy moralizing-- that anything not "natural" is wrong.

M_Grey 10y ago

>There's nothing inherently wrong with the drug, but there's something inherently wrong with the behavior around it, by people who are so desperate for edge. Down that road ultimately lies Lance Armstrong, and East German women with beards. In other words, if you're desperate for an edge and willing to spend money, compromise your health and integrity for it, then you'll eventually move on from expensive bullshit like copper bands, to blood doping (in the case of sports). Right now, with the state of the "art", you're mostly just hurting yourself, but I think it's reasonable to assume that given the money and interest, it will be determined which drugs/methods do yield actual results. If the attitude remains the same, "Anything for an edge," then when that comes you're going to be screwed as a group.

AndrewKemendo 10y ago
compromise your health and integrity for it Why is microdosing LSD compromising integrity?
- M_Grey 10y ago
  I would say not at all, your health on the other hand, is very much an open question people are now endeavoring to answer with their own lives.
  - csp256 10y ago
    Thankfully an entire generation of users has helped answer the question of whether or not LSD is safe.
fsiefken 10y ago
Why is microdosing LSD compromising health? There is no evidence for that
- kordless 10y ago
  Asking questions of dissonance leads to more dissonance. :)
- drwl 10y ago
  I'm not sure there is or isn't evidence but if you study the brain I think you can come to some plausible conclusions that it does compromise health to some extent.
  - mixedCase 10y ago
    Can you go into a little more detail? I have never heard anything like that. While it is just anecdote, the first person to synthesize the drug (and use it, and later practiced microdosing), Albert Hofmann, died from heart attack at the ripe age of 102 with a healthy mind.
    - drwl 10y ago
      Sure. This is just a higher level overview of the brain, I'm sure there are experts who can dive deeper into this matter. The brain is an extremely delicate organ, or atleast that's what I would consider it. It relies on maintaining balance and uses negative feedback. In an effort to regulate brain activity, your brain will do things like down-regulation as an effort to bring your high activity brain (while on lsd) to a more normal level. I haven't looked into exactly what happens with LSD besides that it acts on serotonergic pathways, but sustained high activity can also lead to cell death.
  - fsiefken 10y ago
    Conclusions? You mean 'ways'... the only way I know of - apart from individuals not prone to developing schizophrenia - is taking a lethal dose. The LD50 in humans has not been established but it might be similar to nicotine, around 10 mg/kg. While acid is cheap, it's a few hundreds times more then the typical dosage (40 micrograms). Albert Hoffmann writes in "LSD, my problem child": "The LD50 for the mouse amounts to 50-60 mg/kg IV (that is 50 to 60 thousandths of a gram of LSD per kilogram of animal weight upon injection of an LSD solution in the veins). In the rat the LD50 drops to 16.5 mg/kg, and in rabbits to 0.3 mg/kg. One elephant given 0.297 g of LSD died after a few minutes. The weight of this animal was determined to be 5,000 kg, which corresponds to a lethal dose of 0.06 mg/kg (0.06 thousandths of a gram per kilogram of bodyweight). Most animals die from a lethal dose of LSD by respiratory arrest. The minute doses that cause death in animal experiments may give the impression that LSD is a very toxic substance. However, if one compares the lethal dose in animals with the effective dose in human beings, which is 0.0003-0.001 mg/kg (0.0003 to 0.001 thousandths of a gram per kilogram of bodyweight), this shows an extraordinarily low toxicity for LSD. Only a 300- to 600-fold overdose of LSD, compared to the lethal dose in rabbits, or fully a 50,000- to 100,000-fold overdose, in comparison to the toxicity in the mouse, would have fatal results in human beings. These comparisons of relative toxicity are, to be sure, only understandable as estimates of orders of magnitude, for the determination of the therapeutic index (that is, the ratio between the effective and the lethal dose), is only meaningful within a given species. Such a procedure is not possible in this case because the lethal dose of LSD for humans is not known."
SCHiM 10y ago
I get why an athlete that uses drugs for an edge can be considered to be compromising their integrity. But how does that translate to micro dosing LSD while working? (regardless of it being effective or not).
ramy_d 10y ago
I just wanted to add nootropics to the conversation. They weren't mentioned in the article which is weird because it would fit as a legal substitute within the behavior. I don't know anything about it though.
SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
It only compromises your integrity if you're claiming that you're not doing it -- in my experience, most people microdosing LSD don't brag about how they're not doping. Lance Armstrong, however.... I personally am on the fence about LSD microdosing (and relatedly, most nootropics). There's evidence on both sides and much of it likely comes down to personal psychology and physiology. I think we are going to have to accept the future where unenhanced humans are (largely) obsolete at the top (say, 0.1% or 0.01%), though: if it's not drugs, then it'll be cybernetic implants. I think we might actually agree at a deeper level, and disagree how to address it: you seem to be interested in regulating the actions of people to prevent a tragedy of the commons situation, while I think we need to change the fundamentally exploitative economic structure that's precipitating the tragedy; I think both of us are more concerned with the coercive aspect of the problem than that people are doping. I don't want people to be desparate for an edge, but I also think people have a fundamental right to burn brighter for less time if they want to. But I don't like the ratcheting of that becoming necessary for survival any more than you do.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  It definitely sounds like I want to regulate, but for all that I see these as problems, I see prohibition and the usual course of hamfisted regulation as even worse. I accept that people have varied natures and drives, and some will seek edges to the point of self-destruction. Of course, some few will find real edges and prosper too. I would dream of the kind of solution you're talking about... changing the landscape, but it's hard to imagine that happening in a positive way anytime soon. You're right in your conclusion about the right of people to push themselves, even to destruction. Imagine if the Curies had been told to quit with the experimentation by modern Health and Safety?! The problem is... Japan. Look at what it's like to work in Japan. They have all of these ideas about what you need to do to be working "110%" (roughly translated). You stay late, leave after the boss, drink like a fish, and a bunch of other things that largely do not improve life or productivity. If the search for an edge were not so tightly bound with how work cultures change, permanently, it would be less of a concern. Still, the solution, whatever it may be, is not regulating essential freedoms.
api 10y ago
You mentioned health which is a valid concern, but integrity? It depends on the context of course but saying this generally invokes naturalistic fallacy moralizing-- that anything not "natural" is wrong.