8 ms·

Is it the same six people that keep posting this every 6 to 12 weeks on here? The usual caveats apply: 1. lsd is illegal, so no quality control and no certain

by olefoo 12y ago

Is it the same six people that keep posting this every 6 to 12 weeks on here? The usual caveats apply: 1. lsd is illegal, so no quality control and no certainty that that is what you are ingesting. 2. lsd was and is a mythological drug in every sense of the word. Nothing you know about it is true either to the good or to the bad. 3. Just because there are 5 decades of propaganda about the evils of lsd does not mean that there is nothing bad about it. 4. Be skeptical, read the literature; understand the risks you are taking.

tomphoolery 12y ago
> lsd was and is a mythological drug in every sense of the word. Nothing you know about it is true either to the good or to the bad. This is false, LSD is the most researched psychedelic of them all and while we're not entirely sure of the mechanics of its actions (nor do we know of any of these kinds of brain mechanics, that's why the prescription of anti-depressants seems to be more of a guessing game than a science), we're definitely sure of a few things that occur. LSD is not a unicorn.
- olefoo 12y ago
  mythological in the sense that all sorts of people build up myths about it and it's supposed powers. ( blinding flashes of insight, make you throw yourself off buildings, make you a god, make you an ant, turn your world inside out, heal all traumas, traumatize the most mentally sound, etc. etc. ) Now while there has been some scientific study of LSD's biopharmacology there is an unfortunate tendency for researchers to sample the product and then become evangelists for the drug. Which tends to render their methodology suspect; Leary being only the most notorious example.
Taek 12y ago
LSD is a drug just the same as alcohol and painkillers. There are many irresponsible ways to use it. It is nonetheless something that can be used responsibly. LSD has many whimsical properties. Many of the things that you see and believe while on the drug have no basis in reality. It can nonetheless change your outlook on the world for the better. It can change the things that you perceive to be valuable in the world, and typically you end up valuing both people and nature more after your experience. A frequent theme among newbies is "I learned that people are really important, and that I should help them more." Surely this is a good lesson to learn. "Please trip responsibly."
learnstats2 12y ago
> 1. lsd is illegal, so no quality control and no certainty that that is what you are ingesting. Non sequitur. Its legality has no bearing on quality control or authenticity. LSD is illegal so you are taking a legal risk.
- spinchange 12y ago
  If someone purchases prescription medications from a non-regulated online pharmacy in a remote, third-world country is that simply a legal risk too? Unless you synthesized it yourself or have the ability to analyze it in a lab, you absolutely cannot be certain of quality or authenticity. This is what legally enforced regulatory standards are all about ensuring. The illegal nature of the drug trade not only lacks provision for that, it influences and informs the behavior of participants on the supply side for economic reasons too. In a logical vacuum, yes, it is a legal risk. In practical application, the legal risk is often correlated with the quality risk too.
  - learnstats2 12y ago
    Risk of mis-prescription: "one in 12 visits to the doctor in the US results in the patient receiving dangerous medications" http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Drug-Delivery/No-improvement-in-misprescribing-rates http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Drug-Delivery/No-improv... Risk of prescription being mis-filled: "An estimated 51.5 million errors occur during the filling of 3 billion prescriptions each year." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12688437?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12688437?dopt=Abstract Risk of manufacturing error in prescription drugs: "Dr. Collazo recently worked with a drug manufacturer that had a baseline rate of 4.7 errors per thousand units manufactured." http://www.fdanews.com/humanerrordrugdevice http://www.fdanews.com/humanerrordrugdevice Risk of ??????: "Three batches of Nurofen Plus in pharmacies in south London have been found to contain another drug, Seroquel XL 50mg, which is manufactured by AstraZeneca – a completely separate drug company." http://metro.co.uk/2011/08/25/nurofen-plus-containing-antipsychotic-drugs-isnt-manufacturing-error-127966/ http://metro.co.uk/2011/08/25/nurofen-plus-containing-antips...
    - 12y ago
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Two and four seem to be in blatant contradiction.
anonbanker 12y ago
This bit of fear, uncertainty, and doubt was brought to you by the Institute For Armchair Psychonauts Who Never Use Drugs.
- lomnakkus 12y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't quite get what you're trying to say. Are you saying that using/taking drugs is a prerequisite for talking about drugs (and drug use in general)? If so: That's total nonsense and an unbelievably unscientific attitude.
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    Yeah, calling someone out on FUD is definitely unscientific. Thanks for that.
    - lomnakkus 12y ago
      You have yet to substantiate your claim of FUD. (And your claim of unfitness-to-comment, but I'll leave it at that.)
      - anonbanker 12y ago
        Yeah, definitely adding you to the list of astroturfers to look out for on every pro-drug HN thread. If we wanted the incorrect mainstream opinion, we'd go to the ONDCP's homepage.
        lomnakkus 12y ago
        Sorry, what? (If you're going to claim astroturfing you're going to have to come up with some evidence. Look through my posting history -- you'll find none.) EDIT: Actually, scratch that. If you didn't already do that before accusing me of astroturfing, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
        12y ago
BashiBazouk 12y ago
From my experience, I would liken LSD to peanuts. The vast majority of people out there can have a handful of peanuts with no problems. They may like the flavor or not but it won't cause long term harm. A small percentage are allergic and will have a reaction to peanuts ranging from mild sickness to death. LSD is similar, a small percentage of people will have problems mentally with LSD. It might last just a little while, it might cause (or trigger) life long problems. If you are unsure, take a tiny dose, maybe a 1/4 hit and see what happens. Or better yet, take a tiny dose of psilocybin mushrooms as they are the easiest to come down quickly from. Just eat a meal and you will be mostly down in about 45 minutes. The other thing I discovered was once the paranoia starts to invade every trip consistently, you have learned all there is to learn and it's time to move on. I was annoyed with the paranoia and tried to work through it, though I was somewhat successful, LSD was just not that much fun anymore...
- orasis 12y ago
  Just eat a meal? I think thats an over-optimistic suggestion?
thinkofnothing 12y ago
1. When in doubt, get a testing kit from dancesafe.org and test a sample. This has saved me on a few separate occasions, as 2-C's get passed around as a cheap substitute. 2-4. The past and present purveyors of L treat the substance as sacred. Even though the laboratory synthesis of LSD is rather difficult, it's still rarely sold and usually gifted to fortunate or lost individuals.
mirimir 12y ago
Authentication and quality control are obviously problematic with "illegal" (statist BS) drugs. While customer feedback on anonymous marketplaces does provide some assurance, it is easily gameable. Still, LSD is so potent that adulteration is not a serious risk. Few drugs are hazardous, let alone effective, at doses well under 1 mg. And those that are would not likely be sold as LSD, but rather explicitly as poisons. Blotter and windowpane are the safest dosage forms, because there is less capacity for adulterants. Starting with a low dose is prudent for many reasons. There's a good discussion of progressive dosing strategy in PiHKAL.
anon012012 12y ago
As someone with 10 years drug experience, I'll agree with you. I often see people say LSD is provably safe, when we don't even understand the brain. I'd say instead that it's empirically proven that some people have suffered from negative psychological side-effects for months after an experience. You just have to read boards. From what I've read, it can last up to 6 months. A female friend of mine actually had panic attacks for a while after. It's rare but it happens. And from my own experience, I'd say it has changed me probably more than anything else I tried, in ways I can't describe. I'd rather see someone responsible take ecstasy once or once a year, even though it's addictive and potentially neurotoxic, especially without antioxidants, it tends to be a spectacularly positive experience, emotionally and psychologically, a lifetime event. Also there are studies about how it may help against neurosis, shyness and all. And doing it with close friends or a lover, will give memories to cherish. At least it did for me. It's dangerously addictive and very negatively connotated, it doesn't have the esoterically intellectual marketing appeal of LSD, but I'd dare say it's more intellectually interesting, in that its rewards are clear, human and real. There are a lot of people who take LSD regularly, so it's not that risky, but it's not trivial, especially for intellectual people with anxiety, higher sensitivity, and often difficult lives and childhood. But it's certainly interesting and perspective-shifting.

by olefoo 12y ago

tomphoolery 12y ago

> lsd was and is a mythological drug in every sense of the word. Nothing you know about it is true either to the good or to the bad. This is false, LSD is the most researched psychedelic of them all and while we're not entirely sure of the mechanics of its actions (nor do we know of any of these kinds of brain mechanics, that's why the prescription of anti-depressants seems to be more of a guessing game than a science), we're definitely sure of a few things that occur. LSD is not a unicorn.

olefoo 12y ago
mythological in the sense that all sorts of people build up myths about it and it's supposed powers. ( blinding flashes of insight, make you throw yourself off buildings, make you a god, make you an ant, turn your world inside out, heal all traumas, traumatize the most mentally sound, etc. etc. ) Now while there has been some scientific study of LSD's biopharmacology there is an unfortunate tendency for researchers to sample the product and then become evangelists for the drug. Which tends to render their methodology suspect; Leary being only the most notorious example.

Taek 12y ago

LSD is a drug just the same as alcohol and painkillers. There are many irresponsible ways to use it. It is nonetheless something that can be used responsibly. LSD has many whimsical properties. Many of the things that you see and believe while on the drug have no basis in reality. It can nonetheless change your outlook on the world for the better. It can change the things that you perceive to be valuable in the world, and typically you end up valuing both people and nature more after your experience. A frequent theme among newbies is "I learned that people are really important, and that I should help them more." Surely this is a good lesson to learn. "Please trip responsibly."

learnstats2 12y ago

> 1. lsd is illegal, so no quality control and no certainty that that is what you are ingesting. Non sequitur. Its legality has no bearing on quality control or authenticity. LSD is illegal so you are taking a legal risk.

spinchange 12y ago
If someone purchases prescription medications from a non-regulated online pharmacy in a remote, third-world country is that simply a legal risk too? Unless you synthesized it yourself or have the ability to analyze it in a lab, you absolutely cannot be certain of quality or authenticity. This is what legally enforced regulatory standards are all about ensuring. The illegal nature of the drug trade not only lacks provision for that, it influences and informs the behavior of participants on the supply side for economic reasons too. In a logical vacuum, yes, it is a legal risk. In practical application, the legal risk is often correlated with the quality risk too.
- learnstats2 12y ago
  Risk of mis-prescription: "one in 12 visits to the doctor in the US results in the patient receiving dangerous medications" http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Drug-Delivery/No-improvement-in-misprescribing-rates http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Drug-Delivery/No-improv... Risk of prescription being mis-filled: "An estimated 51.5 million errors occur during the filling of 3 billion prescriptions each year." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12688437?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12688437?dopt=Abstract Risk of manufacturing error in prescription drugs: "Dr. Collazo recently worked with a drug manufacturer that had a baseline rate of 4.7 errors per thousand units manufactured." http://www.fdanews.com/humanerrordrugdevice http://www.fdanews.com/humanerrordrugdevice Risk of ??????: "Three batches of Nurofen Plus in pharmacies in south London have been found to contain another drug, Seroquel XL 50mg, which is manufactured by AstraZeneca – a completely separate drug company." http://metro.co.uk/2011/08/25/nurofen-plus-containing-antipsychotic-drugs-isnt-manufacturing-error-127966/ http://metro.co.uk/2011/08/25/nurofen-plus-containing-antips...
  - 12y ago

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Two and four seem to be in blatant contradiction.

anonbanker 12y ago

This bit of fear, uncertainty, and doubt was brought to you by the Institute For Armchair Psychonauts Who Never Use Drugs.

lomnakkus 12y ago
I'm sorry, I don't quite get what you're trying to say. Are you saying that using/taking drugs is a prerequisite for talking about drugs (and drug use in general)? If so: That's total nonsense and an unbelievably unscientific attitude.
- anonbanker 12y ago
  Yeah, calling someone out on FUD is definitely unscientific. Thanks for that.
  - lomnakkus 12y ago
    You have yet to substantiate your claim of FUD. (And your claim of unfitness-to-comment, but I'll leave it at that.)
    - anonbanker 12y ago
      Yeah, definitely adding you to the list of astroturfers to look out for on every pro-drug HN thread. If we wanted the incorrect mainstream opinion, we'd go to the ONDCP's homepage.
      - lomnakkus 12y ago
        Sorry, what? (If you're going to claim astroturfing you're going to have to come up with some evidence. Look through my posting history -- you'll find none.) EDIT: Actually, scratch that. If you didn't already do that before accusing me of astroturfing, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
        12y ago

BashiBazouk 12y ago

From my experience, I would liken LSD to peanuts. The vast majority of people out there can have a handful of peanuts with no problems. They may like the flavor or not but it won't cause long term harm. A small percentage are allergic and will have a reaction to peanuts ranging from mild sickness to death. LSD is similar, a small percentage of people will have problems mentally with LSD. It might last just a little while, it might cause (or trigger) life long problems. If you are unsure, take a tiny dose, maybe a 1/4 hit and see what happens. Or better yet, take a tiny dose of psilocybin mushrooms as they are the easiest to come down quickly from. Just eat a meal and you will be mostly down in about 45 minutes. The other thing I discovered was once the paranoia starts to invade every trip consistently, you have learned all there is to learn and it's time to move on. I was annoyed with the paranoia and tried to work through it, though I was somewhat successful, LSD was just not that much fun anymore...

orasis 12y ago
Just eat a meal? I think thats an over-optimistic suggestion?

thinkofnothing 12y ago

1. When in doubt, get a testing kit from dancesafe.org and test a sample. This has saved me on a few separate occasions, as 2-C's get passed around as a cheap substitute. 2-4. The past and present purveyors of L treat the substance as sacred. Even though the laboratory synthesis of LSD is rather difficult, it's still rarely sold and usually gifted to fortunate or lost individuals.

mirimir 12y ago

Authentication and quality control are obviously problematic with "illegal" (statist BS) drugs. While customer feedback on anonymous marketplaces does provide some assurance, it is easily gameable. Still, LSD is so potent that adulteration is not a serious risk. Few drugs are hazardous, let alone effective, at doses well under 1 mg. And those that are would not likely be sold as LSD, but rather explicitly as poisons. Blotter and windowpane are the safest dosage forms, because there is less capacity for adulterants. Starting with a low dose is prudent for many reasons. There's a good discussion of progressive dosing strategy in PiHKAL.

anon012012 12y ago

As someone with 10 years drug experience, I'll agree with you. I often see people say LSD is provably safe, when we don't even understand the brain. I'd say instead that it's empirically proven that some people have suffered from negative psychological side-effects for months after an experience. You just have to read boards. From what I've read, it can last up to 6 months. A female friend of mine actually had panic attacks for a while after. It's rare but it happens. And from my own experience, I'd say it has changed me probably more than anything else I tried, in ways I can't describe. I'd rather see someone responsible take ecstasy once or once a year, even though it's addictive and potentially neurotoxic, especially without antioxidants, it tends to be a spectacularly positive experience, emotionally and psychologically, a lifetime event. Also there are studies about how it may help against neurosis, shyness and all. And doing it with close friends or a lover, will give memories to cherish. At least it did for me. It's dangerously addictive and very negatively connotated, it doesn't have the esoterically intellectual marketing appeal of LSD, but I'd dare say it's more intellectually interesting, in that its rewards are clear, human and real. There are a lot of people who take LSD regularly, so it's not that risky, but it's not trivial, especially for intellectual people with anxiety, higher sensitivity, and often difficult lives and childhood. But it's certainly interesting and perspective-shifting.