• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

LSD death

pupnik said:
burn out,
one thing should not be ignored.
the physical safety profile of lysergamides is such that virtually all accidental exposures to it are non-lethal for organic or systemic reasons.

this cannot be said for any other psychedelic or psychoactive substances except salvia divinorum.

besides accidental exposure, all deliberate dosages are also non-lethal for organic or systemic reasons.

Other psychedelics are still reasonable, such as mushrooms (psilocybin) DMT and other tryptamines, and these are unlikely to be accidentally dosed due to the form they take.

Phenethyamines (stimulant type) psychedelics require specific cautions for dosage, and with the sub group of nbomes, well we know well that the safety profile with them is very thin.
Click to expand...

I'm not contending that, I only think it's largely irrelevant. You're not gonna accidentally overdose on psilocybin mushrooms either, nor kava, nor a lot of things. My point is that practically speaking, the real risks from LSD are psychological. Accidentally ingesting 40 hits of LSD might not kill you but it could do significant damage to your mental state. Because the mind is no less important than the body, LSD is not "orders of magnitude safer than almost all other psychoactives".

If you had said the physical safety profile is orders of magnitude safer then I'd agree with you, although I might still point out that from a practical standpoint this is irrelevant most of the time.
 
Simply speaking it is not the way you were thinking.
I think you are over emphasizing the potential drawback of psychological damage.
It is psychologically stressing, no argument to that, but it is not dangerous or life threatening.
My brother offed himself in 2003, so I know firsthand what mental vulnerabiities are, and I know that his lsd experience in 1970 was terrible (I was not there) but I would have expected it too, since his character tended to manic:
extremely funny and then morose, unlike me (philosophic and morose but consistent).
anyway, lsd did not kill him or even unseat his mind, while it was uncomfortable for him, and he never repeated it.
many people bad talk lsd in this way.
but look at alcohol and psychosis, ganga and psychosis, speed and psychosis and then reassess your position.

LSD is the least harmful psychoactive at any dose compared to any, but not the least psychoactive by weight at all.

any psychoactive can be challenging, and if you are manic or depressed it will intensify that to the degree that you dose.
 
LSD is the least harmful psychoactive at any dose compared to any, but not the least psychoactive by weight at all
Click to expand...

The problem here is that your view that LSD is the "least harmful psychoactive" is subjective. First off, if we were to take your statement at face value it would seem to imply that taking LSD is safer than drinking a cup of tea. I disagree with that. How do you measure harm? There are different criteria. For example, alcohol is overall all very harmful on the societal level, much more so than LSD, but to the individual there is certainly a greater risk from taking a dose of LSD than drinking a shot of liquor. I would also argue that there are instances where LSD does great psychological harm. I am not sure how that it makes it safer than the many psychoactives which do little to no harm at all, like kava, valerian, skullcap, etc.
 
alright, please mentally insert "recreational or psychedelic" before the term "psycho active"

as for tea, kava, valerian, or skullcap, I would not look forward to any of them for a week, nor would they enchant my vision and provide layers of imagination and thought.

many of these "harmless" substances are largely placebo, mild affecting, or in the category of relaxing beverage.

while arguing that LSD does great psychological harm might you include more hard evidence like statistics, and will you compare those statistics to other psycho actives including alcohol and if you wish a cup of tea.
 
Kava can be extremely recreational and it is certainly capable of enchanting one's vision. Many people look forward to drinking tea. Have you ever been to England?

I don't think it is necessary to go the route of statistics. The psychological harms of an illicit substance like LSD are difficult to study and quantify as psychological life is complex and it is hard to eliminate confounding variables. I'm not trying to be anti-LSD or claim it destroys the minds of most people who take it, I am simply saying it is an extremely powerful psychedelic agent in my opinion along with anything that powerful comes a degree of risk. Timothy Leary, one of the biggest acidheads and LSD proponents in history said that it was extremely dangerous to take LSD without an experienced guide present for at minimum one's first 10-12 trips. LSD in my experience, can completely shatter one's sense of reality and drastically alter the course of one's life. How is that not dangerous? Many people who have taken LSD have experienced this power. Often times, there are lots of positive benefits, but that's not always the case. I think people who fail to acknowledge the risks of psychedelics are fooling themselves. Maybe you haven't experienced any negative effects but that doesn't mean your neighbor won't or even that you won't at some future point. Look at Terence Mckenna. He had a catastrophic bad trip in the early 90s that affected him for the rest of his life. Granted, that was on mushrooms but my point is that tripping in general carries a certain level of risk whether you want to admit or not. The extraordinary benefits of psychedelics have to be balanced out by certain risks and drawbacks, it's how the universe works.
 
To be honest, I actually agree with Burn out. It's not that LSD is worse than other psychedelics in that sense, but tripping does in general carries a certain level of risk in regards to mental health. That said, this study actually kind of contradicts that -> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747247/

There are influencing factors though, the higher the dose, the higher the risk - obviously. Frequency of tripping is a factor too. And the more experienced one is with psychedelics, the less likely it is for mental "complications" I'd say. As that study indicates, the exact opposite might then be the case.

But of cause, all drug taking includes risks. It's unavoidable.
 
The study does not contradict it. If you read the study it says:

We cannot exclude the possibility that use of psychedelics might have a negative effect on mental health for some individuals or groups, perhaps counterbalanced at a population level by a positive effect on mental health in others.
Click to expand...

I would actually expect psychedelic users as a whole to have equal to or better mental health than the general population. Why? Because psychedelics are a natural spiritual medicine. They are supposed to improve your mental health. We also live in a sick society, where taking something natural is often a much better bet than swallowing big pharma's poisons. When the entire population is poisoned by toxic food, toxic media, degraded culture and pharmaceutical chemicals it doesn't exactly take much to have better mental health than the general public.

But the fact that there is a potential for benefits does not mean psychedelics come without risk. You might do an ayahuasca ceremony with 10 people for example and nine of them find it very beneficial but one person suffers a traumatic trip that changes them for the worse. Psychedelics are a gamble. Many times they pay off, but you can't know what the outcome will be in advance.
 
Last edited:
@ burnout
ok, it's just your opinion (and others' opinion too - I have heard it many times) so you are entitled to it even with no backup.
somehow you use T Mckenna's mushroom horror experience to support your LSD smear campaign (& every comment adds more error to this IMO)
so the lack of backup is actually dependent upon a reference to a story about a person who actually was flakey to begin with.
Your opinion about LSD being dangerous is mostly here-say!

I will admit that during my 20's I believed that LSD was bad due to here-say, so I only smoked pot or did cocaine. then I tried LSD again and found that afterwards I was neither wasted and depressed (from cocaine which is really dangerous) nor foggy and coughing from weed (which is psychologically depressing).

Among all that I have tried LSD has the least physical impact among the recreational substances.

I do not believe that all users are fundamentally more mentally healthy than non-users of LSD, but it is possible that the group of LSD users no longer includes those who avoid it because they have mental issues that LSD exposes. i.e. it may not heal or prevent mental disease, but that does not mean it causes mental disease.
 
What smear campaign? Because I don't agree with you that LSD is the safest psychoactive? And Terrence Mckenna is relevant because all powerful psychedelics share certain risks in common. Going as far out of your mind as psychedelics can take you is dangerous. It doesn't matter if he was "flakey to begin with", a significant proportion of the population is flakey to begin with. If Leary had had a horror trip, people would have said he was flaky to begin with.

I will admit that during my 20's I believed that LSD was bad due to here-say, so I only smoked pot or did cocaine. then I tried LSD again and found that afterwards I was neither wasted and depressed (from cocaine which is really dangerous) nor foggy and coughing from weed (which is psychologically depressing).
Click to expand...

Wow, so you never heard anything bad about cocaine? Did you not know cocaine can cause heart attacks and strokes?

Among all that I have tried LSD has the least physical impact among the recreational substances.

I do not believe that all users are fundamentally more mentally healthy than non-users of LSD, but it is possible that the group of LSD users no longer includes those who avoid it because they have mental issues that LSD exposes. i.e. it may not heal or prevent mental disease, but that does not mean it causes mental disease.
Click to expand...

It can certainly expose mental diseases. That can be good in the case of it exposing something you are then able to deal with and heal from or bad in the case of it exposing something that you don't know how to deal with. For example, John Lily attempted suicide after his second LSD trip because it brought to surface destructive patterns in his subconscious.
 
I'll say acid isn't real dangerous. More people die on all kinds of drugs that are considered safe. Hell ibuprofen will kill ya. The thing is most acid now days is fake. I wouldn't trust anything that low dose unless you have the means to test accurately. These rc drugs are ruining the good ones.
 
Well to be accurate I'd say that unscrupulous people misrepresenting their product are ruining it, not the RC drugs themselves. There are lots of amazing drugs in the RC category (which isn't reallyt a category, as most drugs, LSD included, would be considered an "RC" now if they had only been discovered recently), including some that can fit on blotter.

But yeah, anyone selling a different thing, especially NBOMes which are actually dangerous, as LSD, is a piece of human garbage, for sure.
 
You really gotta keep an eye on statistics (as far as data is available I grant you), people tend to be very bad at judging statistics it is not really in our nature as countless psychological jumps, tricks and fallacies obscure the view. Drugs aren't really safe, but I think psychedelics are reasonably safe.
But they are not toys so you shouldn't compare them in an unfair perspective either. Modern society often wants to try and banish risks, like physicians who are pressured to act that way more than ever. Psychedelics mess with your head so yes your predispositions matter and your current set and setting always do, there are a lot of ways you can hurt yourself and they can be just plain wild. That is different to me though, than a drug which just acts on your body in a way that damages it regardless - by mere biochemistry.

I find NBOMe's pretty worrisome and have been boycotting them for quite a while already. Actually I find it hard to say if the risk of just dying out of the blue is all that high, let alone being able to compare that risk with say "instant sniffing death" but to me that definitely isn't the main scary part. The way they can apparently screw people up mentally so fast is a big part though but unfortunately the statistics for that are lacking far beyond those of the deaths. For all we know the novelty of NBOMe's makes people much more likely to step forward and basically panic on the forum. So I guess I will have to fill in the rest and the conclusion I draw is that I really don't trust them. It helps that I lost my appetite for most of the appealing parts anyway.

Unknowingly dosing an unknown dose of NBOMes is beyond comparison even!

LSD though I trust much more. Was a bit disturbed upon finding out that it has a peculiar way of raping your 5-HT2A receptor, but I also think that losing some of those is probably fine (or even can have beneficial value) and replacing them shortly is, too. Much worse seems to be to overstimulate that system acutely and in a one-sided way.

I will say that I do not recommend taking something like nitrous on acid, surely because of the seizure I appeared to go in at one point and kept a sensitivity to go into such an exact same seizure long after when I tried again (which I think is sort of normal after that first seizure). K+acid or nitrous and LSD (gascid) do have among the most bizarre reporting on them, but I wanna be consistent to point out that you should want to stay away from anything that overloads your brain. There are different kinds of overload of course, but you don't want any of them.

Realizing potential additional risk factors and avoiding them (or avoiding psychedelics including LSD themselves when you cannot) make use of LSD reasonable in my opinion.

It's *much* easier to know such risks and optimizing your use and reaction with a lot of experience though, so a caveat is that in part you might 'try and err'.
 
Touche Xorkoth. It is the sketchy drug dealers selling unscheduled rc's as the scheduled stuff. Not the actual chemicals. I believe the scheduling of drugs is more of the problem than the rc's. I'm not against some level of control just seems the ones that have been shown to be somewhat safe shouldn't land you in prison when you can buy some pretty toxic substances legally.
 
Agreed for sure. Drug prohibition is a ridiculous and failed endeavor that brings far more harm than good, on many levels.
 
I've taken LSD ONCE! It fucked with mind so bad, i thought I was going to take a trip
To the ER. I'll stick to my benzos and opies!
 
I wonder if there is a republican democrat split in this.

just keeding (from canada - we have conservative/liberal which is sort of similar)
 
^^ Actually in American conservative and liberal has become synonymous with republican/democrat to many people.
 
so do the acid heads come from the democrats while the opiates and sedatives are mostly in the republican cohorts?
 
Heh... unfortunately I don't think psychedelics come from either... nor do they or the ideas garnered from the experience exist in politics at all.
 
Xorkoth said:
Heh... unfortunately I don't think psychedelics come from either... nor do they or the ideas garnered from the experience exist in politics at all.
Click to expand...

Well psychedelics are traditionally/stereotypically associated with the left, the "liberal hippie". Of course this may not always be the case on an individual bases and of course one may get ideas from the experience that make both the politics of democrats and republicans and the whole idea dividing people along these lines seem undesirable, but wouldn't you agree that there is at least some truth to the stereotype?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top