yet only one of us is making blanket statements about addicts.
A bad trip does no psychological harm? Anecdotally it thoroughly fucks up some people.uziq wrote:
i don't really class ketamine as a psychedelic and wouldn't recommend it to anyone as a recreational drug. it's a dissociative. i don't enjoy feeling like my mind and body are separated. it doesn't give me any personal or emotional insights and the physical high or euphoria is gross, kind of like being incredibly drunk to the point of senselessness.
with that said, heavy doses of ketamine are being considered as a more effective neurochemical cure for depression – as we understand it as a seratonin-related condition – than taking SSRIs everyday and clogging up your synapses (and the negative side effects and harms of SSRIs are legion).
in terms of 'would i class a bad trip as harmful', no i wouldn't. harm to me mostly denotes toxicity or physical danger and damage to a person. many people in depression treatment using magic mushrooms report that it is a very emotionally challenging experience; but a high proportion of the same people say it is worthwhile. in terms of cures and approaching psychological issues, they are very promising drugs. and being made uncomfortable or fearful is not 'harm' in any medical sense. getting a tooth extracted is a painful and unpleasant experience, but you wouldn't call it harmful would you? psychedelic trip can go straight to the root of a serious emotional problem or personal crisis and alleviate a lot of that pain and anxiety. that's why they are trialling it with people facing terminal cancer.
You're really going to plug away with the argument that use of a drug a single time in a hospital setting means that its OK in a recreational setting?
You don't think that in the studies you've cited the medical professionals would not have screened out all the people who were too young, too old, the borderlines, the manics, the people with high blood pressure, heart conditions, family history of schizophrenia etc etc?
If I screened the test population, set the dose and gave 100% supervision I'm sure I could 'prove' pretty well anything was 'safe'.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
good for you that 'anecdotally' they fuck up a lot of people. however the masses of medical research done on the subject in the 60s/70s and now today with new trials into psilocybin and LSD all contradict that claim.Dilbert_X wrote:
A bad trip does no psychological harm? Anecdotally it thoroughly fucks up some people.uziq wrote:
i don't really class ketamine as a psychedelic and wouldn't recommend it to anyone as a recreational drug. it's a dissociative. i don't enjoy feeling like my mind and body are separated. it doesn't give me any personal or emotional insights and the physical high or euphoria is gross, kind of like being incredibly drunk to the point of senselessness.
with that said, heavy doses of ketamine are being considered as a more effective neurochemical cure for depression – as we understand it as a seratonin-related condition – than taking SSRIs everyday and clogging up your synapses (and the negative side effects and harms of SSRIs are legion).
in terms of 'would i class a bad trip as harmful', no i wouldn't. harm to me mostly denotes toxicity or physical danger and damage to a person. many people in depression treatment using magic mushrooms report that it is a very emotionally challenging experience; but a high proportion of the same people say it is worthwhile. in terms of cures and approaching psychological issues, they are very promising drugs. and being made uncomfortable or fearful is not 'harm' in any medical sense. getting a tooth extracted is a painful and unpleasant experience, but you wouldn't call it harmful would you? psychedelic trip can go straight to the root of a serious emotional problem or personal crisis and alleviate a lot of that pain and anxiety. that's why they are trialling it with people facing terminal cancer.
You're really going to plug away with the argument that use of a drug a single time in a hospital setting means that its OK in a recreational setting?
You don't think that in the studies you've cited the medical professionals would not have screened out all the people who were too young, too old, the borderlines, the manics, the people with high blood pressure, heart conditions, family history of schizophrenia etc etc?
If I screened the test population, set the dose and gave 100% supervision I'm sure I could 'prove' pretty well anything was 'safe'.
wonderful how you champion the rational, scientific method when it suits your prejudices, but resort to anecdote when your opinion prefers it, isn't it?
in the 60s and 70s there was definitely not the rigour or screening we would deem safe and acceptable now. however a meta-analysis of the people reporting adverse and lasting mental effects across a combined sample of 10,000+ people found that rates of permanent psychoses were 'equivalent with the number of people experiencing these outcomes in other forms of psychological treatment'. strange how that doesn't chime with your tabloid-generated anecdotes, isn't it?
as for your reference to screening out people with physical health problems, again as we've ascertained time and time again, the physiological harms of these drugs are nil and they are not taxing on the person whatsoever. i can understand why you'd be worried about people with high blood pressure and heart problems when testing caffeine, that known nervous system stimulant and vasoconstrictor, but not acid or mushrooms – which are harmless. you can stop making out that they are physically unsafe now as we've thoroughly put that one to bed.
a bad trip can be scary and challenging, yes. does it do lasting psychological harm? NO. there is nothing in these drugs or their metabolic afterlife that leaves lasting traces in the person. in the worst case scenario a person will spend a few hours in fear and crying and then the drug will wear off. again, JHU have done lots of research into this recently – and most people who said it was 'among the top 10 challenging experiences of their life' also called it 'beneficial'. sometimes confronting your demons or learning about yourself can be uncomfortable or painful. however, and i must stress this, the drugs are being considered as MEDICINE. if the number of people having permanent psychic breakdowns was high, do you think they'd proceed? but ok. dilbert has an anecdote (i take it you read the snopes pages debunking half of your lazily acquired urban myths...)
you know, this is just going to get to the point where you're arguing from the point-of-view of the worst case limit examples, which are obviously insupportable in any hypothetical scenario. there's obviously a tacit assumption here that any drug is 'safe' insofar as you are an able-bodied and able-minded person. i wouldn't recommend alcohol to someone with depression (dur), i wouldn't recommend cocaine to someone with an addictive personality, and i wouldn't recommend acid to people with severe personality disorders. this is not groundbreaking stuff. considering people who are manifestly unsuited to consuming alcohol, tobacco and caffeine do so routinely and much to their detriment, i'm not really sure what sort of damaging critique you are trying to make of acid and mushrooms.
Last edited by uziq (2017-03-12 23:37:05)
You have no idea what screening was carried out.uziq wrote:
in the 60s and 70s there was definitely not the rigour or screening we would deem safe and acceptable now.
And once again, are you really going to say a single controlled dose in a hospital, most likely applied to select screened adults, really compares to recreational use by teenagers at raves?
the only critique I'm making is on your assertion that LSD is safer than coffee.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2017-03-13 01:47:33)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i said lsd was less harmful than coffee, which in every metric of drug toxicity and medical harm, it is. and that's even when one excuses all the stuff about addiction, long-term dependency, and deep alterations to the brain's sleep-wake cycle, which you are for some reason discounting as 'harm' when no other medical professional ever would.
as for the screening ... there basically was none. certain institutes in the states were testing lsd on huge numbers of people. the british army were doing it on soldiers who weren't told about it. the approaches to tests were not even informed by the same therapeutic framework. it was more like 'let's see what this can do'.
also teenagers doing acid at raves. shows how much you know that you think acid is a rave or party drug.
as for the screening ... there basically was none. certain institutes in the states were testing lsd on huge numbers of people. the british army were doing it on soldiers who weren't told about it. the approaches to tests were not even informed by the same therapeutic framework. it was more like 'let's see what this can do'.
also teenagers doing acid at raves. shows how much you know that you think acid is a rave or party drug.
Last edited by uziq (2017-03-13 10:19:42)
i think this is my favourite acid video of all time
^fake not once did he think he could fly and throw himself off a building.
all these kids nowadays doing acid at raves and frying their brains!!!
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6690
maybe dilbert has taken lsd and was harmed
Those are some great finds, because lets face it the army is well known for caring about the long term welfare of soldiers, doing follow-up studies, being open and honest when it gets something wrong, publishing its data for better or worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/sep … n.politics
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i just linked you several medical journals who are testing with LSD. there are whole books that have been written about the massive acid tests in the 60s and 70s (including their fallout when it was used on mentally ill people). it's all there.
instead you're apparently more interested in military ethics. dude. i just linked those videos as proof that the testing back in the days was not screened thoroughly. lol i swear to fucking god you are so dense.
instead you're apparently more interested in military ethics. dude. i just linked those videos as proof that the testing back in the days was not screened thoroughly. lol i swear to fucking god you are so dense.
So you have one data set where the subjects would have been carefully pre-screened to avoid any poor outcome, and another where any poor outcome would have almost certainly been buried.
I think you need to work on your academic rigour - IF YOU HAVE ANY
I think you need to work on your academic rigour - IF YOU HAVE ANY
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i don't understand where you get this 'carefully pre-screened' stuff from. you are presenting your assumptions as established fact. i have linked plenty of articles and you are quibbling with all of their methodology.
several pages ago i said caffeine is more harmful for you than LSD. it literally is. it's more toxic and it has more far-reaching effects on your lifestyle and health. it directly affects your reward-dependence circuits, alters your sleep-wake cycle, causes stress to your liver through its metabolism, and gives the heart and cardiovascular system more work. LSD is a chemical without a footprint.
that you say it's more 'harmful' because 'kids take it at raves, fry their brains, and lose their minds' (which is an anecdote wrapped in an urban myth supported by your own fancy) is not a counter-argument. caffeine is more harmful for you than acid, it's really that simple. if you want to start stressing the statistical 0.1% of people who have serious mental health episodes as a result of taking LSD, then that already represents how much of the argument's centre ground you have conceded.
several pages ago i said caffeine is more harmful for you than LSD. it literally is. it's more toxic and it has more far-reaching effects on your lifestyle and health. it directly affects your reward-dependence circuits, alters your sleep-wake cycle, causes stress to your liver through its metabolism, and gives the heart and cardiovascular system more work. LSD is a chemical without a footprint.
that you say it's more 'harmful' because 'kids take it at raves, fry their brains, and lose their minds' (which is an anecdote wrapped in an urban myth supported by your own fancy) is not a counter-argument. caffeine is more harmful for you than acid, it's really that simple. if you want to start stressing the statistical 0.1% of people who have serious mental health episodes as a result of taking LSD, then that already represents how much of the argument's centre ground you have conceded.
And how many people have "serious mental health episodes" from drinking tea?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
people have overdosed on caffeine and died. people have allergic reactions to caffeine. pregnant women miscarry or birth deformed babies. people consume caffeine and have a heart attack afterwards.
see what i mean? you're taking the absolute worst case scenario from an acid trip, which affects the tiniest minority of people, and ignoring the fact that caffeine can have serious adverse effects for a tiny minority too. you are arguing from your own prejudice and fear (i like caffeine; i'm afraid of LSD).
see what i mean? you're taking the absolute worst case scenario from an acid trip, which affects the tiniest minority of people, and ignoring the fact that caffeine can have serious adverse effects for a tiny minority too. you are arguing from your own prejudice and fear (i like caffeine; i'm afraid of LSD).
Last edited by uziq (2017-03-15 13:01:43)
4-5 cups of coffee a day will do measurable harm to you. you don't need to take some comical amount (although of course its drastically lower LD50 means it is much easier to get in deep trouble with caffeine; nobody has ever died from an LSD or psilocybin overdose).
Just highlighting it as an example of taking drugs in controlled lab environment
I like how the last few pages of the job thread is about LSD and other drugs.
Where's the study of people taking lsd 4-5 times a day for 10+ years?uziq wrote:
4-5 cups of coffee a day will do measurable harm to you. you don't need to take some comical amount (although of course its drastically lower LD50 means it is much easier to get in deep trouble with caffeine; nobody has ever died from an LSD or psilocybin overdose).
Also lethal dose of lsd is said to be around 15mg, while caffeine is said to be around 10g... That's 600 times as deadly.
lol someone doesn't understand what a lethal dose ratio is. what's the point in even trying to argue with you?DrunkFace wrote:
Where's the study of people taking lsd 4-5 times a day for 10+ years?uziq wrote:
4-5 cups of coffee a day will do measurable harm to you. you don't need to take some comical amount (although of course its drastically lower LD50 means it is much easier to get in deep trouble with caffeine; nobody has ever died from an LSD or psilocybin overdose).
Also lethal dose of lsd is said to be around 15mg, while caffeine is said to be around 10g... That's 600 times as deadly.
fyi the average dose of acid on a single-dose blotter paper is 150ug. this is enough for a full trip. your average single cup of coffee has between 60-100mg of coffee. so yes, lsd is '600x' as dangerous as caffeine
how many people have died of an acid overdose or the physical complications of lsd use? how many people have died because of a caffeine overdose or the physical complications of caffeine stimulation? it's almost as if i've been making a very uncontentious claim for the last 5 pages!!!!
Last edited by uziq (2017-03-16 00:25:09)
you do realise how drug harm is estimated, right? a caffeine user will do more harm to themselves with their 3-4 cup a day habit than an lsd user will ever do in their lifetime. part of that is precisely the fact that acid is non-addictive and doesn't create any compulsion to re-dose throughout the day. so caffeine is less harmful than acid because people consume it continuously everyday through their lives out of physical dependency?DrunkFace wrote:
Where's the study of people taking lsd 4-5 times a day for 10+ years?.uziq wrote:
4-5 cups of coffee a day will do measurable harm to you. you don't need to take some comical amount (although of course its drastically lower LD50 means it is much easier to get in deep trouble with caffeine; nobody has ever died from an LSD or psilocybin overdose).
one drug has a lasting physical effect and takes hold as an addiction. one drug keeps you awake and affects your brain's rest cycles. the other is a drug that temporarily affects your consciousness and wears off with no lasting effects for the statistical 99.99% of people. now which is the more deleterious for your health?
look into the long-term health effects of moderate to high caffeine consumption. that's 4–5 cups or so a day. that's a reality for a large number of people on this planet. but no, acid is really harmful for you.
Last edited by uziq (2017-03-16 00:12:49)
You know air is harmful yes? Hyperventilating can kill you?
I guarantee if I forced you to take 300 times as much air as you were expecting you'd die.
Between a chemical which can fry your brain with one hit, and another which billions consume on a daily basis with no ill effects at all I think I know which I prefer.
Try taking LSD 5 times a day for 10 years and let us know your results.
I guarantee if I forced you to take 300 times as much air as you were expecting you'd die.
Between a chemical which can fry your brain with one hit, and another which billions consume on a daily basis with no ill effects at all I think I know which I prefer.
Try taking LSD 5 times a day for 10 years and let us know your results.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
you guys are so fucking dumb. lethal dose is only relevant in discussions of harm when you discuss its therapeutic index. that is, the difference between its effective dose and the dose that will kill you. i can't believe i even have to state this sort of thing in non-arguments with you pedants.
i'm wasting my time. you don't understand – or wilfully discount – a substantial amount of what makes a drug medically 'harmful'. to you acid wins the sensational and 'scary' prize so it just must be more harmful, period. it makes you do crazy things, man! nevermind the fact that 4–5 cups of coffee a day have been linked to measurable harm, including infertility and stillborn babies. acid is the real harmful chemical here.
you talk about a drug that can 'fry your brain with one hit', which is a wilful misrepresentation. lasting mental harm occurs when you have a pre-existing mental disorder. LSD doesn't give you schizophrenia.
i'm wasting my time. you don't understand – or wilfully discount – a substantial amount of what makes a drug medically 'harmful'. to you acid wins the sensational and 'scary' prize so it just must be more harmful, period. it makes you do crazy things, man! nevermind the fact that 4–5 cups of coffee a day have been linked to measurable harm, including infertility and stillborn babies. acid is the real harmful chemical here.
you talk about a drug that can 'fry your brain with one hit', which is a wilful misrepresentation. lasting mental harm occurs when you have a pre-existing mental disorder. LSD doesn't give you schizophrenia.
Last edited by uziq (2017-03-16 05:13:13)