Massive doses at very young age

[yonkers]

These kids have better luck then me, i can never find good acid let alone finding a bottle of it on the street. And to stillmind, i used to trip on 1g of dxm a few times when i was 13-14, if you consider that young. Nothing to bad happened maybe some social anxiety later on

 

[Captain Brewster]

I'm with laugh, there's not much point to the article except that 'LSD's bad man'.

 

[stillmind]

I'm genuinely flummoxed by your view here - the "point" is to recount the basic circumstances (kids find bottle, ingest contents, have adverse reaction, but are apparently unharmed) and that's done so entirely dispassionately, with zero commentary or analysis about (or even simple mention of) the "dangers" of LSD.

But again, my aim was not to provoke debate about "propaganda", so thank you Yonkers for sharing your experience; does anyone else have any similar experiences?

 

[laugh]

I'm genuinely flummoxed by your view here

doesnt surprise me, but thats ok

sorry, i must be missing something, could you please highlight where it states the bottle was tested and confirmed to contain lsd? hypothetically are there any number of other substances that could have induced the same symptoms in the children? so why claim and report lsd if it has not been confirmed? seems a little bias to me.

(kids find bottle, ingest contents, have adverse reaction, but are apparently unharmed) and that's done so entirely dispassionately, with zero commentary or analysis about (or even simple mention of) the "dangers" of LSD.

umm the dangers of lsd are 'apparently' quite obviously stated - foaming at the mouth, hallucination, hospitalisation, i thought that part was pretty clear.

with zero commentary or analysis about (or even simple mention of) the "dangers" of LSD.

the entire article highlights the 'dangers' of ''lsd'', but it doesnt mention anything of the dangers of not supervising your children.

nothing personal against you stillmind. we obviously have very different interpretations, clearly.

do you have any experiences with doing drugs at a ridiculously young age yourself? may i ask why you are interested in this particular topic of poisoning/taking drugs at a young age and lasting effects?

this link below might be of some interest?

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/655593-NSW-teenager-dies-after-taking-LSD

 

[Delsyd]

here's some propaganda for you:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/655593-NSW-teenager-dies-after-taking-LSD

 

[laugh]

indeed.

 

[stillmind]

doesnt surprise me, but thats ok

sorry, i must be missing something, could you please highlight where it states the bottle was tested and confirmed to contain lsd? hypothetically are there any number of other substances that could have induced the same symptoms in the children? so why claim and report lsd if it has not been confirmed? seems a little bias to me.



umm the dangers of lsd are 'apparently' quite obviously stated - foaming at the mouth, hallucination, hospitalisation, i thought that part was pretty clear.



the entire article highlights the 'dangers' of ''lsd'', but it doesnt mention anything of the dangers of not supervising your children.

nothing personal against you stillmind. we obviously have very different interpretations, clearly.

do you have any experiences with doing drugs at a ridiculously young age yourself? may i ask why you are interested in this particular topic of poisoning/taking drugs at a young age and lasting effects?

this link below might be of some interest?

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/655593-NSW-teenager-dies-after-taking-LSD

Granted, the article MIGHT contain incorrect information, as indeed any source of "news" or information of any type (even direct experience) can deviate from "consensus" reality. It's possible it wasn't really LSD, it's possible the "boys" are actually aliens from another star system etc.. But question of whether the article contains factual inaccuracies is separate from whether it constitutes propaganda.

Therefore, so as to distinguish between inaccuracy and propaganda, let us assume the basic facts ARE accurate: two boys ingested LSD, had an adverse reaction including foaming at the mouth, were taken to the hospital, and subsequently discharged. It seems that you are saying that merely printing these facts constitutes propaganda. It seems then that you're essentially declaring that any recounting of any less-than-desirable reactions from LSD is by definition propaganda. So do you then feel that this article should not have been printed? Is there any way these facts could have been recounted that would not constitute propaganda in your view?

Incidentally, I'm fascinated by the topic mainly because LSD (and other psychedelics) had a very significant long term effect on me (entirely positive, btw) and I didn't experience them until much later in life. Given nueroplasticity, I'd assume effects would be even greater at an earlier age (though arguably harder to assess, given that there's less "baseline" data - i.e., personality is not as well established).

 

[Hanniba1]

I like how they were released the next day.

 

[laugh]

the article MIGHT contain incorrect information

agree

It's possible it wasn't really LSD

agree

it's possible the "boys" are actually aliens from another star system etc..

haha i guess so, sure, why not..

But question of whether the article contains factual inaccuracies is separate from whether it constitutes propaganda.

why so touchy about the p. word? i have given two separate definitions of what the p. word means and as far as im concerned the p. word fits the bill.

propaganda - 'information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.'

propaganda - information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view - oxford dictionary.

if you dont believe me look it up.

It seems then that you're essentially declaring that any recounting of any less-than-desirable reactions from LSD is by definition propaganda

no not at all. your words not mine.

So do you then feel that this article should not have been printed?

there are worse pieces printed all the time. see link i provided as example. if people are silly enough to believe it then thats their problem. just because something is printed dont make it right/factual.

Is there any way these facts could have been recounted that would not constitute propaganda in your view?

definitely. so your saying they are facts now? factually definitely lsd in the bottle. how do you know that?

Incidentally, I'm fascinated by the topic mainly because LSD (and other psychedelics) had a very significant long term effect on me (entirely positive, btw) and I didn't experience them until much later in life.

sounds like me. kids taking psychs is asking for trouble imo, though i believe iv already stated something similar earlier in the thread. have you ever had a bad trip from lsd? i have.
again, nothing personal against you stillmind, its just the article is rubbish and clearly anti drugs and anti lsd p. word...

 

[stillmind]

agree

agree

haha i guess so, sure, why not..

why so touchy about the p. word? i have given two separate definitions of what the p. word means and as far as im concerned the p. word fits the bill.


if you dont believe me look it up.

no not at all. your words not mine.

there are worse pieces printed all the time. see link i provided as example. if people are silly enough to believe it then thats their problem. just because something is printed dont make it right/factual.

definitely. so your saying they are facts now? factually definitely lsd in the bottle. how do you know that?

sounds like me. kids taking psychs is asking for trouble imo, though i believe iv already stated something similar earlier in the thread. have you ever had a bad trip from lsd? i have.
again, nothing personal against you stillmind, its just the article is rubbish and clearly anti drugs and anti lsd p. word...

Haha Ok last stab at this before I throw in the towel.

There are two potential "issues" here. One is the article contains factual inaccuracies. Totally possible. In which case, it's always a loss for everyone in long term when misinformation is spread.

Two, the article is accurate. My question (for the last time, I swear haha) is, IF the article is accurate is it still propaganda in your view?

Put more simply, do you believe the article is propaganda because you don't believe its accuracy, or because it recounts facts that some might believe paint LSD in a negative light?

Oh and to answer your question, I've thankfully never had a bad trip on LSD (knock wood) but certainly have on other psychs. One of the many reasons LSD is my personal favorite and the only psych I do anymore (and even that very rarely).

 

[laugh]

the article contains factual inaccuracies. Totally possible. In which case, it's always a loss for everyone in long term when misinformation is spread.

agree

My question (for the last time, I swear haha) is, IF the article is accurate is it still propaganda in your view?

well obviously, no.

Put more simply

i needed that. im pretty thick, i mean i believe everything that people tell me, and everything i read. contradiction eventuate in confusion and migraines for my hollow head.

im going to drink some beer, watch commercial tv, and read the newspaper stories...good day, or should we get back on topic??

 

[stillmind]

agree

well obviously, no.

i needed that. im pretty thick, i mean i believe everything that people tell me, and everything i read. contradiction eventuate in confusion and migraines for my hollow head.

im going to drink some beer, watch commercial tv, and read the newspaper stories...good day, or should we get back on topic??

Thanks for your reply. You say if true, you "obviously" don't consider this article propaganda, but if you read your previous posts here that's far from obvious. In fact you clearly gave the opposite impression - I could cite said previous posts but I see little point in wasting more of anyone's time.

Obviously one can always dismiss any piece of information with the argument "it could be false" and of course there is no way to conclusively prove the veracity of any claim or experience. What we all CAN definitively identify is cases where manifestly false, subjective or extraneous information is injected into an ostensibly objective account, of which unfortunately there are all too many prime examples to choose from. But it seems like we are all on the same page that this article is not among them.

 

[justinsayno]

Given nueroplasticity, I'd assume effects would be even greater at an earlier age (though arguably harder to assess, given that there's less "baseline" data - i.e., personality is not as well established).

Or maybe the opposite is true ?

I agree on paper nueroplasticity would suggest that a trip would effect a child more, but you could also say that part of the wonder of tripping is a return to a child-like state.
Maybe those kids walked away and never gave it a second thought ?

 

[laugh]

Thanks for your reply.

thats ok. have you cornered me?

You say if true, you "obviously" don't consider this article propaganda, but if you read your previous posts here that's far from obvious. In fact you clearly gave the opposite impression - I could cite said previous posts but I see little point in wasting more of anyone's time.

your words not mine. are you attempting to put words in my mouth again?

Obviously one can always dismiss any piece of information with the argument "it could be false"

yep agree

and of course there is no way to conclusively prove the veracity of any claim or experience.

nope disagree

What we all CAN definitively identify is cases where manifestly false, subjective or extraneous information is injected into an ostensibly objective account, of which unfortunately there are all too many prime examples to choose from.

nice selection of words. so you dont see any issue with the claim/(p. word) the bottle contained lsd?

But it seems like we are all on the same page that this article is not among them.

haha what? im not sure we are reading the same book, let alone the same page. maybe one of us is reading the book backwards, right to left.

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

I remember posting about this in DITM when it happened and apparently they'd taken the drug "smiles" or 2C-I. So was it LSD, or was it 2C-I dissolved into a liquid and then into a breath mint bottle?

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/...-students-take-drug-smiles-and-go-to-hospital

 

[stillmind]

so you dont see any issue with the claim/(p. word) the bottle contained lsd?

Let me try another angle. I think we agree that there is no way you or I can know with 100% certainty that that bottle contained LSD (as indeed we can't know the absolute veracity of anything we read). Is it this uncertainty that makes this article propaganda? And if so, do you therefore feel it should not have been published at all?

 

[stillmind]

I remember posting about this in DITM when it happened and apparently they'd taken the drug "smiles" or 2C-I. So was it LSD, or was it 2C-I dissolved into a liquid and then into a breath mint bottle?

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/...-students-take-drug-smiles-and-go-to-hospital

The September report says police are "investigating whether" the kids took Smiles.

The more recent article states "investigators determined" it was LSD.

My take would be that police immediately jumped to the conclusion it was "smiles" given the recent hysteria about that compound, but that subsequent testing determined is was LSD.

 

[doorknob]

Can't see how that's propaganda myself either. How utterly terrifying would it be to ingest a potentially huge dose of LSD without knowing, especially as a young chil. I remember a story about a 5 year old girl ingesting LSD she found thinking it was a sweet. She ended up pretty traumatised from the incident.