3 ms·

Another annoying aspect of LSD is that it's impossible to say anything bad about LSD without being jumped on by people who have made LSD part of their own ident

Another annoying aspect of LSD is that it's impossible to say anything bad about LSD without being jumped on by people who have made LSD part of their own identity, the same way being a Democrat is part of their identity. Try saying anything bad about either one, and you're in for a bad time. It's possible that the silent majority simply feel that spending a bunch of time in an altered LSD state is a crazy thing to do. People claim they are profoundly different after tripping, but if you look at what they do, not what they say, they don't seem much different. They seem like pretty much the same person, if you look at their accomplishments before and after. That's not to discount the therapeutic properties. If LSD can help someone in pain, whether physical or emotional, then it's a great tool. But that's a very different situation from what most LSD proponents seem to imply: that everyone should do it for no particular reason except curiosity. And curiosity is nice, but we should at least be willing to admit what it is: an interesting experience, the same way taking a vacation to a remote tropical island is an interesting experience. But you'll still be pretty much the same person before and after your vacation, though more relaxed afterwards.

pcthrowaway 12y ago
Psychedelics are a part of my own identity, but moreso DMT and mushrooms than LSD. In fact, I have had several terrifying experiences with LSD that left me a bit shaken. I've also known people to go off the deep end with LSD. I think drugs should be taken with caution, and LSD is one that I am reluctant to take again (though there is a fair chance I will at some point). LSD has shown me a power to ravage the human psyche in ways that I haven't seen in mushrooms or LSD, and therefore I consider it to have the potential to be somewhat more dangerous.
eatmyshorts 12y ago
A few counterpoints to your statement, "if you look at what the do, not what they say, they don't seem much different." Francis Crick attributed his discovery of DNA to LSD. Steve Jobs attributed much of his accomplishments in life due to his experiences on LSD (iirc, his aversion to buttons was developed during one particular LSD trip, and this led to the design of the one-button mouse, the click-wheel on the iPod, and the button-less front face of the iPhone). Jimmy Hendrix also attributed much of his creative abilities due to LSD. I think you'll find as many examples of people who are transformed by it as you want to. Put your blinders on, and it's just a drug to "turn on, tune in, and drop out". First-hand experiences of the drug, like psilocybin (chemically basically the same drug), show that people truly do have positive life-altering changes in their lives after the experience.
- michaelcampbell 12y ago
  That cuts both ways - people can equally say "I was able to <X> because I never took <Y>." Without some objective data, there's no way to attribute the abilities and accomplishments to the absence or presence of LSD.
  - eatmyshorts 12y ago
    Crick developed his understanding of the structure of LSD during an LSD trip. Steve Jobs developed an active aversion to buttons during one of his LSD trips. These were merely two examples of direct counterpoints to the GGP post. These weren't concepts that were enabled indirectly by LSD; they were the direct results of the LSD trips, not cases of "I was able/not able to do <X> because I took/never took <Y>".
    - michaelcampbell 12y ago
      Strawman. While those stories MAY be true, it's equally valid to posit that those discoveries/thoughts may well have happened otherwise, too. Just like all the things that have been discovered while not on LSD, for example.
      - eatmyshorts 12y ago
        I think you're confusing a "straw man argument" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) with "anectdotal evidence" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence ). I never claimed anything but anectdotal evidence, as I presented three separate cases of anectdotal evidence as direct contradictions to the original post. These examples are, indeed, direct contradictions to the original post. The original author then edited their post to add the bit about possible therapeutic properties of the drug, but the original content stated categorically that LSD did not contribute to any significant development in people that took it, and I presented three counterpoints, two of which claim that their insights came while on the drug, as a direct consequence of the drug's effects on the mind. In either case, the additional edit stating "that everyone should do it for no particular reason except curiosity" was not in the original post, and is something that nobody here, as far as I can tell, is promoting. LSD, like psilocybin, is a powerful drug, and should be respected as such.

pcthrowaway 12y ago

Psychedelics are a part of my own identity, but moreso DMT and mushrooms than LSD. In fact, I have had several terrifying experiences with LSD that left me a bit shaken. I've also known people to go off the deep end with LSD. I think drugs should be taken with caution, and LSD is one that I am reluctant to take again (though there is a fair chance I will at some point). LSD has shown me a power to ravage the human psyche in ways that I haven't seen in mushrooms or LSD, and therefore I consider it to have the potential to be somewhat more dangerous.

eatmyshorts 12y ago

A few counterpoints to your statement, "if you look at what the do, not what they say, they don't seem much different." Francis Crick attributed his discovery of DNA to LSD. Steve Jobs attributed much of his accomplishments in life due to his experiences on LSD (iirc, his aversion to buttons was developed during one particular LSD trip, and this led to the design of the one-button mouse, the click-wheel on the iPod, and the button-less front face of the iPhone). Jimmy Hendrix also attributed much of his creative abilities due to LSD. I think you'll find as many examples of people who are transformed by it as you want to. Put your blinders on, and it's just a drug to "turn on, tune in, and drop out". First-hand experiences of the drug, like psilocybin (chemically basically the same drug), show that people truly do have positive life-altering changes in their lives after the experience.

michaelcampbell 12y ago
That cuts both ways - people can equally say "I was able to <X> because I never took <Y>." Without some objective data, there's no way to attribute the abilities and accomplishments to the absence or presence of LSD.
- eatmyshorts 12y ago
  Crick developed his understanding of the structure of LSD during an LSD trip. Steve Jobs developed an active aversion to buttons during one of his LSD trips. These were merely two examples of direct counterpoints to the GGP post. These weren't concepts that were enabled indirectly by LSD; they were the direct results of the LSD trips, not cases of "I was able/not able to do <X> because I took/never took <Y>".
  - michaelcampbell 12y ago
    Strawman. While those stories MAY be true, it's equally valid to posit that those discoveries/thoughts may well have happened otherwise, too. Just like all the things that have been discovered while not on LSD, for example.
    - eatmyshorts 12y ago
      I think you're confusing a "straw man argument" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) with "anectdotal evidence" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence ). I never claimed anything but anectdotal evidence, as I presented three separate cases of anectdotal evidence as direct contradictions to the original post. These examples are, indeed, direct contradictions to the original post. The original author then edited their post to add the bit about possible therapeutic properties of the drug, but the original content stated categorically that LSD did not contribute to any significant development in people that took it, and I presented three counterpoints, two of which claim that their insights came while on the drug, as a direct consequence of the drug's effects on the mind. In either case, the additional edit stating "that everyone should do it for no particular reason except curiosity" was not in the original post, and is something that nobody here, as far as I can tell, is promoting. LSD, like psilocybin, is a powerful drug, and should be respected as such.