LSD - does anyone agree? (argument about LSD being unhealthy)

[DKKON1]

Agreed Beaves 100%

 

[pmoseman]

I've always felt the same way, though for me LSD has been less harmless than marijuana. LSD has never been anything but a positive element in my life. I'm sure for some people it can be a problem, but then again so can almost anything.

Nothing I experienced in my life has ever come close to the problem I mentioned. It was really very remarkable.

First time skimming through this thread. Hilarious. My girlfriend has strict parents(not born in North America) and they argue in very much the same way as the op. A closed off brick wall who will never change their stance and repeat the same ignorant statements ad nauseam. Eventually you have to lol every time and realize it's simply a waste of breath.

They sound intelligent.

Psychedelic drugs are not stimulants, and to call them as such is incorrect. Although some of them do have some stimulant-like properties to a degree.

... and not all stimulants are associated with psychosis; amphetamines have certain depressant characteristics; LSD is also the model psychedelic; compare the definition of stimulant and psychedelic.

 

[whiteroom67]

Nothing I experienced in my life has ever come choose to the problem I mentioned. It was really very remarkable.


They sound intelligent.


... and not all stimulants are associated with psychosis; amphetamines have certain depressant characteristics; LSD is also the model psychedelic; compare the definition of stimulant and psychedelic.

1) What theacidtest said is true in every regard.

2) They sound ignorant, so I will assume what you said about them sounding intelligent was sarcasm.

3) Please explain to me scientifically, preferably with sources cited, how amphetamines at all display certain CNS depressant characteristics as their part of their primary effect - this counteracts all scientific facts ever written; and also please explain how it directly correlates to psychedelics.

Every CNS stimulant has been associated with psychosis when approaching overdose or overuse amounts, the two primary examples being amphetamines and cocaine. I'm not going to get overly scientific in this thread. Amphetamines generally work to increase the amount of dopamine and norepinephrine regarding dopamine and norepinephrine receptor sites. Cocaine is similar, in the effect at it stimulates neural pathways in a similar fashion, yet different, by inhibiting dopamine reuptake at neural transmitters, primarily at the D2 receptors from what I have read, again primarily affecting dopamine. It also inhibits reuptake of serotonin at the 5-HT3 receptor site, which I would assume contributes to the less jittery effects of cocaine compared to amphetamine, especially amphetamine's L-isomer.

Psychedelics work in a completely different regard, and generally are completely unrelated to dopamine and largely affect the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor, replacing serotonin at that receptor and certain others, which is what makes each psychedelic unique in their respective effects. It temporarily "replaces" serotonin at these receptor sites, which contributes to its mood-altering and both sensory and information perception alteration effects. Due to this temporary replacement of serotonin in the brain, psychedelics have been shown to, in contrast to traditional stimulants, actually decrease activity in certain areas of the brain, primarily what could be regarded as the "filters", allowing more information to pass through the sensory receptors and information processing pathways, and also deactivates the part of the brain involving the ego, or rather the part of the brain which allows us to create our self-identity, and hence separate ourselves from others and our environment.

Psychedelics decrease brain activity, allowing more sensory intake and information processing to occur, while simultaneously decreasing brain activity in the region of the brain which is in charge of ego and self-identity, mostly due to replacement of serotonin in the 5-HT2A receptors, while stimulants like amphetamine and cocaine primarily affect dopamine and norepinephrine which increases brain activity and speeds up one's system, physically and psychologically. Both have been linked to psychosis, but psychedelics have only been linked to psychosis in individuals who were already genetically predisposed to psychological disorders such as bipolar, chronic depression, generalized anxiety, or some form of schizophrenia, while stimulants such as amphetamines and cocaine have been known to cause psychosis in any individual, predisposed to psychological disorders or not, when connected to heavy and/or chronic use.

 

[lovepsychadelics]

^ Some/many psychedelics of the PEA class have DRI or dopamine releasing activity even wiki tells us so and they have reference links. Tryptamines like aMT also have MAOI activity as does crystal meth. It's called stigmatization... Did I mention crystal meth is a PEA???

 

[pmoseman]

1) What theacidtest said is true in every regard.

2) They sound ignorant, so I will assume what you said about them sounding intelligent was sarcasm.

3) Please explain to me scientifically, preferably with sources cited, how amphetamines at all display certain CNS depressant characteristics as their part of their primary effect - this counteracts all scientific facts ever written; and also please explain how it directly correlates to psychedelics.

Every CNS stimulant has been associated with psychosis when approaching overdose or overuse amounts, the two primary examples being amphetamines and cocaine. I'm not going to get overly scientific in this thread. Amphetamines generally work to increase the amount of dopamine and norepinephrine regarding dopamine and norepinephrine receptor sites. Cocaine is similar, in the effect at it stimulates neural pathways in a similar fashion, yet different, by inhibiting dopamine reuptake at neural transmitters, primarily at the D2 receptors from what I have read, again primarily affecting dopamine. It also inhibits reuptake of serotonin at the 5-HT3 receptor site, which I would assume contributes to the less jittery effects of cocaine compared to amphetamine, especially amphetamine's L-isomer.

Psychedelics work in a completely different regard, and generally are completely unrelated to dopamine and largely affect the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor, replacing serotonin at that receptor and certain others, which is what makes each psychedelic unique in their respective effects. It temporarily "replaces" serotonin at these receptor sites, which contributes to its mood-altering and both sensory and information perception alteration effects. Due to this temporary replacement of serotonin in the brain, psychedelics have been shown to, in contrast to traditional stimulants, actually decrease activity in certain areas of the brain, primarily what could be regarded as the "filters", allowing more information to pass through the sensory receptors and information processing pathways, and also deactivates the part of the brain involving the ego, or rather the part of the brain which allows us to create our self-identity, and hence separate ourselves from others and our environment.

Psychedelics decrease brain activity, allowing more sensory intake and information processing to occur, while simultaneously decreasing brain activity in the region of the brain which is in charge of ego and self-identity, mostly due to replacement of serotonin in the 5-HT2A receptors, while stimulants like amphetamine and cocaine primarily affect dopamine and norepinephrine which increases brain activity and speeds up one's system, physically and psychologically. Both have been linked to psychosis, but psychedelics have only been linked to psychosis in individuals who were already genetically predisposed to psychological disorders such as bipolar, chronic depression, generalized anxiety, or some form of schizophrenia, while stimulants such as amphetamines and cocaine have been known to cause psychosis in any individual, predisposed to psychological disorders or not, when connected to heavy and/or chronic use.

1) What I am talking about is measured in weeks, months, and oftentimes years. It is a serious but not very common side effect of LSD use. There is plenty of room for it in the statistics and it has adequate evidence.

It is true if you drink enough of your own urine it has a toxic effect, that you will probably die from falling down the stairs, and that these are things we do everyday. Comparing the risk of those activities to any other activity is difficult without having more details.

Most people love watching someone else take risks but I really do not find it amusing.

2) Not being sarcastic, at all. Parents fret about the health of their children; that does not make them unintelligent. Old people have opinions and the reasoning may be old and forgotten; it can be difficult once you formed an opinion to revisit and change it and more complex than it seems.

Something you have a particular interest in you will naturally have fresh opinions about and a difficult time understanding why others wouldn't automatically agree.

Whatever is adequate enough for your reasoning may not be enough for someone with a more seasoned viewpoint.

How do you know anything more than I do about these people?

3) Erections.

You are absolutely wrong and have really managed to sound like you know what you're talking about.

I strictly urge you to look in a dictionary and prove yourself wrong. I have no ulterior motive for this advice and it is not based on a feeling I got one morning.

 

[spacejunk]

It is true if you drink enough of your own urine it has a toxic effect, that you will probably die from falling down the stairs, and that these are things we do everyday.

You drink your own urine every day?

This thread is ludicrous. How many more bizarre tangents can you take?

 

[pupnik]

even tangents have to be dosed with a measure of sanity
set setting and dosage
.

 

[spacejunk]

Psychedelic tangents make more sense to me, but then again - I come here to engage with the discussion these forums are for.

I don't take steroids, or think the non-medical use of steroids/growth hormones etc for bodybuilding is a good idea - but I don't go onto the steroid discussion forum and try to 'convert' people - not that I'm even sure that is what is going on here.

Admittedly, I don't understand (or trust) the motivations of an anti-psychedelic thread on a psychedelic sub-forum; that's not what the philosophy of harm reduction is about - at least to my way of thinking.
Then again, I don't quaff my own urine either.

 

[whiteroom67]

3) Erections.

You are absolutely wrong and have really managed to sound like you know what you're talking about.

I strictly urge you to look in a dictionary and prove yourself wrong. I have no ulterior motive for this advice and it is not based on a feeling I got one morning.

How are erections even closely related to the intake of psychedelics? You are ridiculous and this thread is ridiculous. The fact that it is still open and you are being allowed to say these things is ludicrous.

And just because parents care about their children does mean that anything they say related to the fact is "intelligent". Your definition of intelligence is obviously one completely different than that considered of the modern English-Oxford dictionary.

^ Some/many psychedelics of the PEA class have DRI or dopamine releasing activity even wiki tells us so and they have reference links. Tryptamines like aMT also have MAOI activity as does crystal meth. It's called stigmatization... Did I mention crystal meth is a PEA???

This may be true but the actions and mechanisms are still completely different. One would not take LSD or shrooms and say "I took a stimulant". One would, and should, say "I took a psychedelic". Likewise, one wouldn't take speed and say "I took a psychedelic". One would and should say "I took a stimulant". Some phenylethylamines primarily work as stimulants, like PEA itself, and others work more as psychedelics, like mescaline. It all depends on it's primary effect. Sometimes there is a carryover or secondary effect but it doesn't mean it deserves to be classified as a stimulant if it primarily acts as a psychedelic.

Directly from Wiki:

"Phenethylamine /fɛnˈɛθələmiːn/ (PEA), β-phenethylamine, or phenylethylamine is an organic compound and a natural monoamine alkaloid, a trace amine, and also the name of a class of chemicals with many members well known for psychoactive drug (not psychedelic)and stimulant effects."

Also:

"The group of phenethylamine derivatives is referred to as the phenethylamines. Substituted phenethylamines, substituted amphetamines, and substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines (MDxx) are a series of broad and diverse classes of compounds derived from phenethylamine that include stimulants, psychedelics, and entactogens, as well as anorectics, bronchodilators, decongestants, and antidepressants, among others."

Not that Wiki is a 100% guaranteed source of correct info but that info specifically is sourced in any case.

Therefore, depending on the type of PEA it is, including PEA itself, it could be either a stimulant or a psychedelic, but it depends largely on its primary and secondary mechanisms. But to say "psychedelics are stimulants" is a largely broad and inaccurate statement.

Whiteroom- I'm an INFP as well. I always feel alien and unusual compared to most, good to see another Lol. I bet this place is above the going rate as far as weirdo INFPs go. It Fits me 98% , my reaction in a conflict are still calculated though, not prone to irrational decision making. Just drugs...

Yeah, I feel like INFP's are one of the types more prone to over-drug use for some reason lol.

 

[Solipsis]

Alright this thread has been humored long enough.

Of course Bluelight is generally a bit biased to be pro-drugs and it may be that if the average opinion here turns out to be that psychedelics like LSD are relatively safe. But bias or no I think it is realistic if we only add the nuance that LSD is not safe for just everyone used in any way. It can mainly be called reasonably safe with responsible use and may be considerably less safe when abused, although I know for certain that even that is not a guarantee for disaster.
Of course sometimes / occasionally people don't react well to it and can develop short term or long term issues (still it must always be realized that these issues may often be an underlying pre-existing condition!), those people did not choose to have it happen to them and apparently have not seen in time that tripping perhaps was not a wise idea for them. An error in judgement at that point can even be considered part of the condition!
So people who have had complications from psychedelics are probably also biased to look at the substances from that outcome, rather than statistical probabilities of that happening.

Therefore IMO it is unsurprising that there is no easy resolution or concession reached, if people cannot look past their own experiences that skew their perspective and subjective opinion.

If anyone is interested in possible long-term effects of LSD use (even if rare or very uncommon if it were described as a side-effect of medication on the pharmacy pamphlet), a thread can be created on the subject. Although I must ask pmoseman preemptively not to give other BLers the feeling that it is being ruined by sounding like a broken record.

Because at the same time these concerns are valid and a real part of psychedelic use that must be acknowledged, investigated, discussed... but this instance still is past expiration. Since I am saying a number of things in this 'closing argument', it is fair if anyone who feels that it is left improper without their addendum can PM me about it.

closed