Where do LSD images come from?

Factual Questions
41

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
You’re arguing that because many people haven’t had long-term effects, that it is therefore impossible? That doesn’t make sense. The drug appears to affect everyone differently, and can even affect the same person differently at different times.
[/QUOTE]

At no point did I state that it was impossible. It’s damn possible. I stated that we did not know that as a scientifically accepted fact. You compared stating that LSD does not cause brain damage to stating that HIV does not cause AIDS. That analogy is faulty for many reasons. First and foremost is that out of millions of people with AIDS, all of them have HIV. There’s also not that many people who have HIV and do not eventually develop AIDS. If there were millions of brain damaged LSD users out there, you’d have a point, however out of the millions of people who have taken LSD only a handful claim any permanent effects, and even those are anecdotal. Therefore your analogy is flawed.

A lot of people were knowingly and unknowingly exposed to LSD in the past. Although controlled studies are now very difficult to setup, if there was a substantial danger associated with LSD it would’ve emerged by now. One of the only human deaths officially attributed to LSD is Dr. Frank Olson

42

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
You’re arguing that because many people haven’t had long-term effects, that it is therefore impossible? That doesn’t make sense. The drug appears to affect everyone differently, and can even affect the same person differently at different times.
[/QUOTE]

I do doubt that the APA as a whole ever said it was “perfectly safe.” Why? When is the last time you heard a clinician describe anything as “perfectly safe” without asking you to sign a 3-page disclaimer before the procedure? What you do often hear and read is clinicians stating that it is a shame it isn’t available for more study because it shows great promise and is safe enough for experimentation. Likewise with MDMA. Likewise with psilocybin mushrooms, ibogaine, and any list of compounds known to make previously dependable trust-fund children start talking nonsense like world peace.

Aside from all the stuff about “brain damage”, if you subtract the anecdotal studies of lifelong burnouts (who have put god only knows what into their bodies), if you discount the ‘data’ from the CIA’s research of LSD as a hostile mind control weapon (see MKULTRA), if you discount the patently false scare stories like the girl who thought she was Superman and jumped out a window (which did not happen), the biggest danger from LSD appears to be that your child might decide he doesn’t want to take over Dad’s law practice.

So my suggestion with regards to substances is, positive claims require positive proof, particularly with statements as dramatic as “brain damage.”

43

I’m somewhat reluctant to add my input since I no longer have any interest in taking LSD and haven’t done so in quite some time. However, it is something I have done many times in the past (50+) and as such I feel I have quite a bit of information on the subject. I have also explored most other psychedelic substances.

First of all, I suggest that nobody ever try it at all, ever. If you have doubt at all in your mind that it’s not a good idea for you, you are absolutely right. It absolutely *will *change the way you think, and this may not necessarily be a good thing. If you have any latent psychological issues at all, they will likely come front and center when you take LSD. I have seen this happen several times. Some folks will get over it, some will not.

With that being said, there’s a lot of good information already in this thread. To address the OP as some already have, there’s not much in the way of outright hallucinations - it’s typically a distortion of what’s already present at the senses. Someone mentioned the hotel lobby scene in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I agree that this is probably the most accurate depiction on film. The carpet movement and the distortion of Catherine Helmond’s face is spot on. Most hallucinations are not outright fabrications so much as sensory improvisations on what’s already there. However this is a very personal aspect of tripping. I have experienced audio hallucinations of things that were more than just a distortion of real phenomena. A few times I have experienced outright visual hallucinations of things that were not present, but that was rare for me - most often it was was an emotional feeling of profound meaning behind seemingly mundane things like others have described in this thread. The worst part about LSD is that after all the excitement has died down, you’re still awake for many uncomfortable hours after.

LSD is actually pretty pedestrian compared to some other hallucinogens. I have had experiences on mushrooms that were much more intense than most LSD I’ve taken. I suggest avoiding Salvia Divinorum outright, especially extract and extract enhanced leaf. It’s currently still legal and available (although somewhat expensive) but it can be a very disorienting and frightening experience if it’s done for the wrong reasons and in the wrong environment. DMT is essentially the same as Salvia. I used to think Terrence McKenna was completely out of his mind because of some of the things he’s said about DMT until I tried it, then I understood.

44

I’ve seen lots and lots and lots of extraordinarily vivid images on LSD. Stuff like the ending of 2001 is just the beginning. You also get kaleidoscopics composed of elements from nature–even citrus slices just like in those Frutopia ads, but also bat wings and spiders, and especially reptiles like snakes and dragons. You can see every scale, every tooth, and those evil, evil slit eyes. The dragons are swallowing you–repeatedly because it’s a mouth within a mouth within a mouth. I chalked this up evolutionary instinct and our ancestors’ need to recognize dangerous reptiles. (And this inspired one of more offbeat essays in my book: http://www.squeakywheelsblog.com/instinct).

It’s easy to get sucked into the scary stuff, but if you’re pure of heart there’s good stuff, too. While listening to Emerson, Lake, and Palmer it was like I was in a brightly lit cathedral and the stained glass windows came alive and it was like Jesus on the cross was before me and there was this bright tunnel of light that I went up just like in Tron and…and…and…

…and you can switch channels and see 3-D, multimedia animated imagery from any culture, Japanese, East Indian, for some reason trippers report seeing a lot of Aztec or Meso-american art. Oh man, but it goes on and on…

You have to lie there and keep your eyes closed, tho.

45

[QUOTE=groman]
At no point did I state that it was impossible. It’s damn possible. I stated that we did not know that as a scientifically accepted fact.

[/quote]

Then we are in agreement. If you’ll read back, I said that there is no scientific evidence one way or the other. We don’t even know exactly how LSD produces hallucinations, much less being in a position to scientifically demonstrate that a particular effect was incontrovertibly caused or not caused by the drug. Therefore it is premature to rule the numerous accounts of permanent damage as a “myth”, as people are trying to do. To state conclusively that the accounts are all mistakes or lies is to say that it is impossible to suffer permanent damage. Since we both agree that it is not impossible, I don’t see that we have any point of contention.

I disagree. “Correlation does not equal causation” cannot be used in reverse to prove a negative. You can say that the correlation does not prove the LSD was the cause, but you cannot then reason that “LSD does not cause brain damage”. You can’t get from “A does not necessarily imply B”, to “B is false”. Such reasoning is every bit as flawed as reasoning that HIV does not cause AIDS. Besides which, it is far more than a “handful” of claims. This isn’t some wacko extremist position; it is a widely known and well-documented phenomenon. Google “LSD long-term effects”.

It has emerged. It’s not a physical danger; it’s a psychological danger. Don’t conflate the issue with other irrelevant apocryphal stories of physical dangers.

I think there’s a tendency in people who have tried certain drugs and had a benign experience to assume that nothing could possibly be different for anyone else. “It didn’t hurt me, so it couldn’t possibly hurt you”.

46

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
I disagree. “Correlation does not equal causation” cannot be used in reverse to prove a negative.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t try to prove a negative nor did I say you were wrong, I just pointed out the analogy was faulty. It fails the “A is to B as C is to D” test – “HIV is to AIDS as LSD is to Brain damage” is not a prudent comparison.

[QUOTE=lowbrass]

It has emerged. It’s not a physical danger; it’s a psychological danger. Don’t conflate the issue with other irrelevant apocryphal stories of physical dangers.

I think there’s a tendency in people who have tried certain drugs and had a benign experience to assume that nothing could possibly be different for anyone else. “It didn’t hurt me, so it couldn’t possibly hurt you”.
[/QUOTE]

I know very well how much it could hurt. What is it that we’re arguing about? I just think there’s no reason for LSD not to be at least Schedule III and properly evaluated in a clinical setting – hence to me LSD causes brain damage sounds kind of like valium causes brain damage (which I bet it does, but does anybody care?)

47

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
I don’t do blind links to entire webpages. But if you find anything specifically from the APA saying LSD is perfectly safe, I’d be very interested in seeing it, and I would happily admit that I’m wrong.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, but I never claimed it was perfectly safe. Uh, actually I did. I retract that. No drug is perfectly safe, but many are deemed low-risk enough that they are legal to use. Aspirin is not perfectly safe. Tylenol is anything but. But it’s legal, and many doctors prescribe it.

I don’t see how many psychologists would prescribe LSD if they did not think it was low risk enough to do so.

Sure. But we were talking about ecstacy. Go back to post #33 to see the origin of that threadlet.

48

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
If you’ll read back, I said that there is no scientific evidence one way or the other. We don’t even know exactly how LSD produces hallucinations, much less being in a position to scientifically demonstrate that a particular effect was incontrovertibly caused or not caused by the drug. Therefore it is premature to rule the numerous accounts of permanent damage as a “myth”, as people are trying to do. To state conclusively that the accounts are all mistakes or lies is to say that it is impossible to suffer permanent damage.
[/quote]

No, that is highly faulty logic. Discrediting the anecdotes, sensationalism, and outright false propaganda does not prove the impossibility that LSD may cause permanent brain damage. It also does not prove the impossibility that it causes demons to fly out of one’s nose, yet nobody seriously suggests installation of demonic nasal deflectors “just in case”.

And while we’re at it, why not Google on alien abduction. My god, there’s REAMS of information out there. There must be something to it.

Again, what danger? Proven by whom? Is it really “danger” as in someone becoming a threat to themselves or others? Is it a danger that they permanently lose some mental faculties? Or, as is most often the case, someone grows in a way that their friends and family do not validate as normal, and this is called “danger?”

There seems likewise to be a widespread tendency for people with no direct experience in certain matters to discount direct experience in favor of whatever is broadcast on TV.

49

[QUOTE=tdn]
I don’t see how many psychologists would prescribe LSD if they did not think it was low risk enough to do so.

[/quote]

CITE FOR ANY PSYCHOLOGIST CURRENTLY PRESCRIBING LSD?

Why? I never said I heard of long-term effects from ONE usage of ecstasy. I don’t understand why you believe saying “But we were talking about ecstasy” changes that.

50

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
CITE FOR ANY PSYCHOLOGIST CURRENTLY PRESCRIBING LSD?

[/QUOTE]

LSD was made illegal (at least in the U.S.) in 1968. You’re not likely to find such a citation, then.

It is interesting to note, however, that Albert Hoffman first synthesized LSD in the late 1930s . So there was plenty of time for psychologists to prescribe LSD in their treatments.

51

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
CITE FOR ANY PSYCHOLOGIST CURRENTLY PRESCRIBING LSD?
[/QUOTE]

There are no psychologists currently prescribing (in the sense of Rx) anything. People who have a medical license and in such a capacity prescribe a psychoactive substance are acting as medical doctors, even if they are also psychologists.

Many psychologists currently prescribe (in the sense of advocate) LSD use in psychotherapy. I’m running late but here are some names to Google: Stanislav Grof and Myron Stolaroff should get you started and whoever their followers are.

52

Furthe googling has turned up this site on therapeutic uses of LSD (sorry, I didn’t have time to read it).

And this site (again, I don’t have the time to read it).

FWIW, I’m only posting these to demonstrate that there is legitimate scholarship to be had in the study of LSD therapy.

53

[QUOTE=Brain Wreck]
No, that is highly faulty logic. Discrediting the anecdotes, sensationalism, and outright false propaganda does not prove the impossibility that LSD may cause permanent brain damage.

[/QUOTE]

There is pro-drug propaganda just as much as there is anti-drug propaganda. The government has put out some dubious information about supposed drug “dangers”. But you have to separate the wheat from the chaff, which you are not doing. Legitimate evidence of long-term effects from LSD use is not in the same category as general anti-drug hysteria. You are failing to recognize any difference. You lump any suggestion of a possible danger in the “hysteria” category. Classic “poisoning the well” fallacy.

But nobody has ever claimed that demons flew out of their nose. Demons don’t even exist. If you don’t understand that we’re talking about documented accounts from actual people, then you haven’t read a word I’ve written.

If you can’t tell the difference between a respectable source and a whack-job webpage, I can’t help you.

Here’s your pro-drug bias again. You assume that any change is beneficial to the drug user. It’s like you’ve never heard of anyone having a bad trip. What’s interesting is that you just admitted that permanent changes are possible, yet you pretend that the only change possible is “growth”. It is well known that LSD can engender feelings of profundity AS WELL AS feelings of extreme anxiety. As I already said (and you apparently didn’t read), the danger is not a physical one, but rather a danger that the user will be left with extended anxiety or depression. Read Mike Fun’s post - he sounds like he has some experience in the matter.

I think you desperately want this to be about Mr. Establishment-Man trying to keep you down with his lies, but it’s not about that. I am not anti-drug in any way. I just don’t happen to believe that all drugs are necessarily a good thing for every individual. We can’t just label every possible negative consequence of drug-use as “hysteria”.

There’s the problem in a nutshell. You seem to be putting more weight on your own experience, and assuming that an individual experience is better evidence than collective accounts, which unfortunately ignores the fact that not everyone will respond to the drug the same way as you do.

54

[QUOTE=Atomicktom]
Furthe googling has turned up this site on therapeutic uses of LSD (sorry, I didn’t have time to read it).

[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I haven’t had time to read it either, but I did see this:

So it sounds like a bust.

There also seems to be mention of using small doses. As far as I know, it could be benign in small doses. The people we’re talking about who may have suffered permanent impairment I assume took full hits, not small clinically-controlled doses.

55

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
CITE FOR ANY PSYCHOLOGIST CURRENTLY PRESCRIBING LSD?
[/QUOTE]

I never said currently. I never implied it, or meant to. I thought it was clear from context that I meant before 1968. Hence my reference to a “blanket ban”, meaning that it was banned from theraputic use as well as recreational. In 1968. Not last week.

Why the use of all caps? Why are you trying to be contentious instead of simply asking for clarification? I’d be happy to provide it if you ask nicely.

Let me recap the conversation, paraphrasing:

Me: MDMA has been used in therapy.

You: But in large doses, MDMA can cause brain damage.

Me: In therapy, small doses were used, and only a few times.

You: But LSD can ruin a person on the first try.

See what you did there? I know this thread is pretty much everyone vs you, but it would really help things along if you could keep the sub-threads straight.

56

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
There is pro-drug propaganda just as much as there is anti-drug propaganda. The government has put out some dubious information about supposed drug “dangers”. But you have to separate the wheat from the chaff, which you are not doing. Legitimate evidence of long-term effects from LSD use is not in the same category as general anti-drug hysteria. You are failing to recognize any difference. You lump any suggestion of a possible danger in the “hysteria” category. Classic “poisoning the well” fallacy.

But nobody has ever claimed that demons flew out of their nose. Demons don’t even exist. If you don’t understand that we’re talking about documented accounts from actual people, then you haven’t read a word I’ve written.

If you can’t tell the difference between a respectable source and a whack-job webpage, I can’t help you.
[/quote]

OK, I have to call bullshit at this point. You have posted exactly one cite (well, not a proper cite, just your own recollection) of something you saw on 60 minutes this one time. And if you’ll pardon my saying, television journalism is not particularly known for its thoroughness, expertise, nor for its accuracy. Apart from that, you have bushels of your own opinion, presumably 100% from secondhand sources. You have no grounds to say I’m dismissing valid information until you actually BRING some. And no, “go Google it” doesn’t count. It’s not my job to do your homework for you.

What we’re claiming (if I may be so bold as to speak for others) is that if you want to say a substance is good, or that a substance is bad, you need to provide evidence. This is a neutral position. What you appear to be claiming is that “everybody knows LSD causes…um… brain damage? bad trips or something?” without bringing any cites to back yourself up. So it doesn’t really wash for you to claim everyone else is tainted by pro-drug bias while you yourself are pure as the driven snow.

So, if you want to steer the debate into factuality, I personally am willing to continue. If you are going to stick with appeals to common knowledge and impugning the motivations of good faith participants, there’s no value worth engaging there.

57

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Thanks. I haven’t had time to read it either, but I did see this:
So it sounds like a bust.
[/quote]

You were given a paper by Dr. Stanislav Grof, a pioneer and champion of LSD therapy and managed to take a single sentence out of context to conclude that Dr. Grof was saying LSD had no therapeutic potential? I have literally no words for this kind of aggressive ignorance. Had you read just a few more lines you might have been enlightened by the following:

(bolding mine)

He’s saying that nobody has proven LSD as a purely chemotherapeutic agent, i.e. just pop a pill and it’s all better, but that when administered as a psychotherapeutic adjunct, the potential seems “quite extraordinary and unique.”

But then again, that could be just my crazy “pro-drug bias” melting my brain and causing me to hallucinate paragraphs that aren’t really there.

58

[QUOTE=lowbrass]

Quote:
As indicated in the above survey of therapeutic experimentation with LSD, the efforts to exploit purely pharmacological properties of this drug have failed to bring positive results. The concept of LSD as simply a chemotherapeutic agent has been abandoned by all serious researchers in the field.

So it sounds like a bust.

[/QUOTE]

A bust in what sense? The quote you mention merely indicates that purely pharmacological properties have failed to bring positive results. LSD is simply not a chemotherapeutic agent.

This, I’ll remind you, is what I had said in an earlier post:

[QUOTE=Atomicktom]
IIRC, the problem with LSD was that it’s proponents, who were using it in clinical settings (RFK’s wife was one who used LSD in this fashion) could not clearly identify its effects; LSD experiences were, and remain, subjective. Thus, it flied in the face of “hard science”, which wanted predictable results from its use. Another problem resulted from the fact that researchers (including Dr. Timothy Leary, a Harvard psychologist) felt that the best way to guide someone through an LSD trip was to trip with them. Again, this flied in the face of traditional research methodologies.
[/QUOTE]

That is, you can’t simply say, “If you suffer from X symptom, take LSD and you’ll eliminate X symptom.” LSD use is subjective, which is one of the reasons that it became too controversial for mainstream science.

This is not equivalent to say that LSD has no place in clinical settings, or that it can’t be beneficial. If anything, it says that science is too rigid in its classifications to accomodate for the subjective nature of this substance.

Meanwhile, MODS, haven’t we left the OP behind and entered GD yet?

ETA: haha…looks like BrainWreck beat me to the rebuttal!

59

[QUOTE=Brain Wreck]
He’s saying that nobody has proven LSD as a purely chemotherapeutic agent,
[/QUOTE]

Fight my ignorance here – Did somebody actually once think that tripping out could cure cancer? What am I missing?

60

[QUOTE=tdn]
Fight my ignorance here – Did somebody actually once think that tripping out could cure cancer? What am I missing?
[/QUOTE]

No, it’s not your fault, the word “chemotherapy” is best known in the sense of cancer chemotherapy. The broader sense of the word chemotherapy describes treatment that works purely by virtue of chemical activity. Contrast with surgery, physical rehabilitation, psychotherapy, etc.

Various people at various points have wondered whether LSD could be a purely chemotherapeutic agent, a “fire-and-forget” sort of thing like Ritalin, requiring no psychotherapy. Most people agree that LSD isn’t going to be effective in that kind of modality.