3 ms·

> You'll have a pretty bad time during the trip, but the clarity it provides is life changing. Or it may traumatize you for life. And that "clarity" may just b

by GuB-42 3y ago

> You'll have a pretty bad time during the trip, but the clarity it provides is life changing. Or it may traumatize you for life. And that "clarity" may just be an illusion, which doesn't mean it can't have a positive effect, but you can't really count on it. That's the problem with psychedelics, they are unpredictable. The can definitely do miracles, but they can also do great harm, though usually not by the way of toxicity or addiction. There is a reason we don't use LSD for psychiatric treatment. This is no conspiracy theory, they tried, and failed. I mean, LSD is a product of big pharma, and as you may have guessed, Sandoz really wanted to make a real treatment out of their patented drug, for money. Maybe with modern science and better experience with psychedelics, we could success where the others have failed, but we are not there yet. That's why I really don't recommend that type of self-medication. Now, if you want to enjoy a good trip, go for it, there are some risks, but rather low if you do it properly, and many good things in life carry risks. But suggesting a heroic dose to someone anxious with the implication that it may lead to a bad trip is going against every advice regarding psychedelics, and essentially replicating the very experiments that failed and caused LSD to end up as a schedule 1 drug rather than a recognized treatment. It may work, but that's a huge gamble.

simbolit 3y ago
There has been a research gap on LSD (and many other 'drugs') of nearly 50 years. Only in the last decade or so are we actively researching 'uses' again. I think this is most interesting and potentially promising: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082376/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082376/ Disclaimer: While I have big problems with current legal regimes and discourses on 'drugs' (virtually always excluding ethanol and nicotine), I do NOT promote or advocate the use of psychedelics. Most of them (see above) are massively under-researched and many available substances are not at all pure, so there is always a non-trivial danger associated.
samplatt 3y ago
>There is a reason we don't use LSD for psychiatric treatment. This is no conspiracy theory, they tried, and failed. This is wrong. There's a lot of misinformation around the history of psychedelics. The early "clinical trials" were extremely bad science. The short version is the scientist leading the team who first synthesized it was also the person who first attempted to popularize its use, and is pretty much a poster-child for "sex- and drug-crazed hippy". The US had already adopted a heavy anti-drug rhetoric and later LSD was rolled into the war on drugs effort. There was bad-faith-actors on both sides of the fence for a long time. >Or it may traumatize you for life. [...] But suggesting a heroic dose to someone anxious with the implication that it may lead to a bad trip is going against every advice regarding psychedelics Completely agreed. The potential for long-term trauma cannot be understated. They shouldn't be played with unsupervised, and the supervisor should be well versed in what happens with a good AND a bad reaction. (I don't like the term 'bad trip'.)
- sleepybrett 3y ago
  > The short version is the scientist leading the team who first synthesized it was also the person who first attempted to popularize its use, and is pretty much a poster-child for "sex- and drug-crazed hippy". You seem to have missed some history. LSD was first synthesized in 1938 by Albert Hoffman and first accidentally ingested in 1943 by the same. He was not a 'sex- and drug-crazed hippy'. You are certainly thinking of Timothy Leary, a clinical psychologist, had a mushroom experience in 1960 and spun that into a bunch of research into uses of psychedelics in psychology. He was eventually fired by Harvard in 1963. He then kinda goes off the rails, eventually he went to and escaped from prison along with many other exploits.
  - samplatt 3y ago
    You are correct. That was badly edited on my part: I wrote half a sentence about the first synthesis but forgot to remove it when talking about the popularization.

by GuB-42 3y ago

simbolit 3y ago

There has been a research gap on LSD (and many other 'drugs') of nearly 50 years. Only in the last decade or so are we actively researching 'uses' again. I think this is most interesting and potentially promising: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082376/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082376/ Disclaimer: While I have big problems with current legal regimes and discourses on 'drugs' (virtually always excluding ethanol and nicotine), I do NOT promote or advocate the use of psychedelics. Most of them (see above) are massively under-researched and many available substances are not at all pure, so there is always a non-trivial danger associated.

samplatt 3y ago

>There is a reason we don't use LSD for psychiatric treatment. This is no conspiracy theory, they tried, and failed. This is wrong. There's a lot of misinformation around the history of psychedelics. The early "clinical trials" were extremely bad science. The short version is the scientist leading the team who first synthesized it was also the person who first attempted to popularize its use, and is pretty much a poster-child for "sex- and drug-crazed hippy". The US had already adopted a heavy anti-drug rhetoric and later LSD was rolled into the war on drugs effort. There was bad-faith-actors on both sides of the fence for a long time. >Or it may traumatize you for life. [...] But suggesting a heroic dose to someone anxious with the implication that it may lead to a bad trip is going against every advice regarding psychedelics Completely agreed. The potential for long-term trauma cannot be understated. They shouldn't be played with unsupervised, and the supervisor should be well versed in what happens with a good AND a bad reaction. (I don't like the term 'bad trip'.)

sleepybrett 3y ago
> The short version is the scientist leading the team who first synthesized it was also the person who first attempted to popularize its use, and is pretty much a poster-child for "sex- and drug-crazed hippy". You seem to have missed some history. LSD was first synthesized in 1938 by Albert Hoffman and first accidentally ingested in 1943 by the same. He was not a 'sex- and drug-crazed hippy'. You are certainly thinking of Timothy Leary, a clinical psychologist, had a mushroom experience in 1960 and spun that into a bunch of research into uses of psychedelics in psychology. He was eventually fired by Harvard in 1963. He then kinda goes off the rails, eventually he went to and escaped from prison along with many other exploits.
- samplatt 3y ago
  You are correct. That was badly edited on my part: I wrote half a sentence about the first synthesis but forgot to remove it when talking about the popularization.