I actually tried LSD a couple of times because of this article, back when it was written. It was a pretty enjoyable experience, and I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested in trying it, with a few caveats.
First, you need to have an experienced sitter with you. You're in for the full 8-10 hours, and on the off chance you start having a bad trip (things getting really dark and scary), you need someone to ground you to reality (and change the music or location, which can often instantly snap you out of a mood).
Second, if you're generally comfortable with your own thoughts and have a positive outlook you're much less likely to have a bad trip. This is why I think it's better to do it when you're older and more mature, rather than in your late teens/early twenties. I think you have more of an ability to process what's going on. Many people have the thought at some point during the trip, "What if I get stuck like this?" which can probably lead to a slight panic if you're not good at thinking about your own thoughts and realizing the feeling for what it is.
Third, go out into nature if you can. Preferably with just your friends and not a lot of people around. It's pretty cool.
Finally, the day after you'll feel somewhat drained and probably just want to stay inside and read. The day after, you're totally fine. I think the real long-term effects are kind of just a "tweaking of the dials". I don't feel like it was some super transformative experience, but it was really interesting in a way that's hard to describe, and you learn a lot about your own mind and how it works. I also feel like it kind of cleaned the windows on the way I see the world, in that I feel more positive and open to ideas, and in some ways I feel like I might be more creative now. It might sound hard to believe, but I understand now why they're researching using hallucinogens to treat depression, PTSD, etc.
Anyway, I'm not encouraging anyone to do it, but I will say that emotionally mature people should not be afraid to do it. Also, I never got any kind of signs that it was addictive. I pretty much just did it once, did it a few months later, and that was it for me.
If you didn't think it was a super transformative experience, you probably only took a low dose, and perhaps didn't have the proper set or setting.
Check out the Marsh Chapel Experiment,[1] "Varieties of Psychedelic Experience",[2] the "Psychedelics Encyclopedia",[3] and Erowid's trip reports[4] for examples of people who did have massively transformative experiences.
That said, from what I've read, it's relatively rare for LSD to radically transformative in the long run (for various, psychologically interesting reasons). However, short-term transformation is relatively common, given a high enough dose and the proper set and setting.
Third, go out into nature if you can. Preferably with just your friends and not a lot of people around. It's pretty cool.
LSD impairs your ability to feel cold. People have died by taking drugs and then going out into snow. I sadly can't find the proof to back up my claim, but I read about a case of a girl taking ketamine and then going outside and succumbing to hypothermia.
Turner died after injecting an unknown quantity of ketamine while in a bathtub, presumably drowning while incapacitated by the effects of the drug.
Before jumping down my throat that ketamine isn't related to LSD in any way, I know. It's true. But when you get into a mindset where taking LSD seems like a good idea, taking other drugs starts to seem like maybe-okay. It's no coincidence that the psychonaut I linked to was taking a ton of different drugs including LSD.
I know people are going to be upset with me sweeping LSD under the classification of "drugs." People die from heroin and other hard drugs, but nobody has ever died from an LSD overdose. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the mindset that you're tempted to get once you delve into this scene.
People have near-religious experiences after taking LSD, and they'll espouse the wonders of psychedelics while downplaying the risks. But there are risks.
Before taking LSD, ask yourself: Are you sure you want to be a different person afterwards? People everywhere talk about the transformative nature of LSD, so that's what you'll be doing: transforming into a different person. Exploring land is fun because you get to go places you've never seen before. Exploring how chemicals affect your brain is fun if becoming a different person is fun. So don't do it unless you're sure you dislike yourself.
People have often credited significant breakthroughs to taking LSD, but your chances of getting rich from bitcoin are significantly higher than making a huge impact on the world by consuming LSD. It'll certainly have a huge impact on your personal life, though, for better or worse.
> LSD impairs your ability to feel cold. People have died by taking drugs and then going out into snow. I sadly can't find the proof to back up my claim, but I did read about a case of a girl taking ketamine and then going outside and succumbing to hypothermia.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, the idea of a "sitter" is someone that is not under the influence, so this could negate such effects if one fully follows the advice of the parent post.
> Before taking LSD, ask yourself: Are you sure you want to be a different person afterwards? People everywhere talk about the transformative nature of LSD, so that's what you'll be doing: transforming into a different person. Exploring land is fun because you get to go places you've never seen before. Exploring how chemicals affect your brain is fun for some because they become different. So don't do it unless you're sure you dislike yourself.
You could make the same philosophical arguments against "downloading your mind into a computer" or "using a Star Trek transporter." How do you know that the consciousness on the other end is still "you?"
> So don't do it unless you're sure you dislike yourself.
This is, in my opinion, a terrible reason to stay away from LSD. You're effectively saying avoid anything that may have bad results. Not liking yourself has never been a prerequisite for being curious. I've seen people have panic attacks on roller coaster rides that almost certainly altered their chemical balance for a significant period of time with permanent fear of heights tagging along, but once you start staying away from things that are on that scale of 'danger', at what point does it become relative to now say, "Stay away from playing sports, unless you don't like the way you function". I realize this is a slippery slope fallacy, so I'm not asking you to consider that exact scenario seriously, I'm just asking you to consider there could potentially be worse consequences to having that mindset than taking LSD.
I'm not advocating taking LSD, at all, mind you. I ignorantly (having never taken LSD) presume the social consequences of taking 'real drugs' outweigh the potential benefits.
The video of someone jumping out a window was the main point. While LSD's effects aren't as acute as salvia, they're both psychedelics. A bad trip can get you into a freakout frame of mind.
The situation is that LSD usage has been suppressed and denigrated by authorities, and now we're seeing a backlash against draconian drug restrictions. But it's easy to swing the pendulum too far the other way and downplay the negatives.
Drug usage should be a personal choice, and the only way to make good choices is to be fully informed. So I was trying to make sure everyone is informed about the risks. Specifically, you'll see things which aren't actually there, and if you freak out, you may make some decisions which turn out to be embarrassing at the least. That's where your responsible sitter needs to do their job.
There's nothing wrong with doing LSD. It sucks that there's a social stigma and it's hard to find a responsible sitter. But why go through all the trouble when there are some seriously scary downsides? The goal was simply to remind that there are pitfalls to watch out for.
All of this is just what I wish someone would've told me when I was a teenager. They warn everyone about peer pressure, but you tend to ignore those warnings as a teen. Anything your parents or teachers warn you about is de facto cool. So if they warn against peer pressure, you naturally want to rebel. "And besides, it seems so fun and harmless."
But peer pressure is very powerful. For example, whenever LSD threads pop up on HN, everyone talks about the wonderful experiences they've had, along with some impressive people who did LSD, like Jobs. And people often want to emulate Jobs.
That's a powerful distraction. It makes you forget what should be obvious: this is a personal choice, so make sure you're making the choice for the right reasons. Ignore what other people are doing, ignore the list of people who have done LSD, and weigh the risks appropriately.
You pull an excerpt from a quote that I included from the parent comment to my post. I'm not sure if the "you" is generic or directed at me, but I didn't say "don't do it unless you're sure you dislike yourself."
> You could make the same philosophical arguments against "downloading your mind into a computer" or "using a Star Trek transporter." How do you know that the consciousness on the other end is still "you?"
Yeah, which is going to keep me from using the Star Trek transporter until it's studied further.
For what it's worth, the chances that you will remain "you" for more than a short time are next to nil. You're different from your teenage self, who was different from your child self. Those people are dead, locked in the memories of a living person only slightly.
When you get old, there's a good chance brain disease will slowly erase your personality until nothing is left.
As you wander around the world, your blood pumps and exchanges ions, changing the physical substrate of your brain at every instant. Your sense of self is an illusion.
I think trying to hang onto who you are is like trying to hang onto a dream you're waking up from, but with the advantage that you can try to guide your future self into being a better person than you were.
I can clearly state that me 2015 is a distinctly different person than me mid-2013, some ways better some ways worse. My physical substrate has certainly changed. The fact that change is usually gradual and smooth hides the truth within a story we tell ourselves, mostly because our memories provide a sense of continuity.
That said, it's up to each person to weigh the risks of using a psychedelic drug. Would it help guide you into who you want to be in the future?
This is actually one of the insights that I think are pretty common with LSD. Your brain is made up of various subsystems (visual processing, time perception, language interpretation, language generation, motor control, etc.), but subjectively they all seem to be a singular "you" unit.
With LSD it's really demonstrated to you that the "you" part is in some ways separate from some of the other parts but in other ways not separate. It's a feeling and an experience that is very hard to describe to someone who hasn't also experienced it, although I have heard some people have a similar effect with really deep meditative states.
Either way, you're not likely to change into a completely different person after an acid trip. You just think about things a little differently is all, and even that wears off after a while.
> These chemicals will change your brain, and your brain is who you are.
I suspect that your brain is who you think you are because you've learned to associate the concept of self with your thought processes, but I ask you if you are indeed your thinking then how is it that you're able to observe your own thought ?
If you'll bear with me for a moment, doesn't it also make sense to think that you may be whatever is observing both thought and sensory phenomena ?
To run with that assumption for a moment.. if you are the observer rather than the thought, or body sensations under observation, then why assume that you're located in your brain ? After all aren't you equally observing the sensation of your little toe as you wiggle it ?
I suspect that man is so continually engaged with the process of thought-observation as his primary focus that he has developed a bais towards self-identification with that one area of the body in particular (the head) when logically speaking he has no reason to assume he's not equally located in his little toe.
Lets take this thought experiment one step further. If you can observe the body, as in the naturally arising sensory observation of bodily fabrications, and you can also observe thinking, then is it safe to assume that the observer is the same as that which is under observation ?
Or perhaps the observer is the process of observation itself rather than the observer or the observed (do you feel more like a verb or a noun lately) ?
or maybe it's both, or neither. Or could it be that it's neither nor one, nor the other, nor both, nor neither, as some buddhists have suggested ?
> It's not philosophical. It's physical.
If you come to suspect that you are either the observer, or the process of observing then how do you know for sure whether or not you are philosophical or physical in nature ? Or suppose you are both philosophical and physical in nature such as was reported to be the case with the fabled philosophers mercury of the hermetic alchemists ?
These are the kinds of questions that the process of self-reflection may stir up within the individual and for some people LSD can serve as a catalyst that prompts them to pause and reflect. I personally suggest that you can achieve the same thing with less risk to your person simply by pausing (becoming very still), and reflecting inwardly, but this doesn't come naturally, so it takes practice. I know from personal experience that the early teachings of the Buddha as preserved by the Theravada linage are almost entirely devoted to practical instruction on how to accomplish this very feat.
In closing I suppose if the article linked above is true, and ergot was a major component of the Western (greek) Mysteries then it occurs to me that perhaps it's this process of inward reflection, and it's fruits, which unite the ancient western with the ancient eastern mystical traditions.
A reading of the Gospel of Judas shows that hallucinogens, and the exploration of the metaphysical self, were key (forgotten/censored) parts of the Christian biblical experience as well.
You could also make the same argument about "reading a book", "reading HN regularly", "allowing time to pass"... Don't do any of those things if you want to stay exactly the same!
the idea of a "sitter" is someone that is not under the influence, so this could negate such effects if one fully follows the advice of the parent post
Indeed. It's crucial advice. Doing LSD without a responsible sitter would be like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. It's very sad that LSD is both illegal and has a social stigma, because it's less likely that people will find LSD along with a responsible sitter. I'm a datapoint of one, but my experience was that people involved with getting LSD also tend to want to do it as a group. They're not very responsible. It's easy to imagine a friend trying to persuade you to do it with them, which is the situation I found myself in. But again, a datapoint of one isn't very useful.
>People have often credited significant breakthroughs to taking LSD, but your chances of getting rich from bitcoin are significantly higher than
>making a huge impact on the world by consuming LSD. It'll certainly have a huge impact on your personal life, though, for better or worse.
You probably won't believe me, but I went from being a directionless loser to going to med school and becoming a successful doctor after an epiphany during an LSD trip. I also invested a 5 figure sum into bitcoin when it was $3 a coin and am now a multimillionaire.
I'm not even going to justify any of the other silly stuff you said with a response.
The money is irrelevant. LSD isn't why you chose to invest in bitcoin. It was a happy coincidence.
My comment said "Don't do it unless you're sure you dislike yourself." Before I say this, I want to clarify that this isn't an insult: you called yourself a directionless loser, so your reply doesn't disagree with me.
>Before taking LSD, ask yourself: Are you sure you want to be a different person afterwards? People everywhere talk about the transformative nature of LSD, so that's what you'll be doing: transforming into a different person. Exploring land is fun because you get to go places you've never seen before. Exploring how chemicals affect your brain is fun if becoming a different person is fun. So don't do it unless you're sure you dislike yourself.
> I read about a case of a girl taking ketamine and then going outside and succumbing to hypothermia.
Turner and this woman's case are covered in _Ketamine: Dreams and Realities_ http://www.maps.org/books/K-DreamsKJansenMAPS.pdf , by Jansen; he argues that there are extenuating circumstances in those cases and it's not as simple as 'ketamine killed them'.
> Exploring how chemicals affect your brain is fun if becoming a different person is fun. So don't do it unless you're sure you dislike yourself.
This sentence isn't really logically sound. There are lots of reasons to make a transition from a place of satisfaction to a place of uncertain satisfaction. Happy people often explore!
Aside, 'Becoming a different person' implies a large amount of permanence. I'd really enjoy seeing this assertion sourced. Especially with regards to one-time or infrequent use of psychedelics. Could you point me to anything you've found particularly convincing?
There's nothing scientific. A friend hadn't ever dreamed in color before taking LSD, but after taking it and going to sleep later that night, they had a vivid dream in color. Since then, every dream they remember having has always been in color. They were very surprised and very certain.
That was some pretty convincing anecdotal evidence that LSD can cause permanent changes in certain susceptible people. It was an improvement in their case, but that seems like luck.
Reminds me of Richard Feyman taking LSD. He said he had an incredible breakthrough and a moment of pure clarity on a problem he had been working on mid-trip, only to come down and realize his breakthrough was really jibberish and not insightful at all.
Everyone probably has experienced dreams where they stumble upon a powerful, deep, great idea. Upon waking up, the idea generally turns out to be trivial.
Psychedelics and entheogenics often give you the feeling of profundity. They put you in the same mind state you have when you contemplate a truly deep thought, but that doesn't necessarily mean the thoughts are particularly deep.
That said, that doesn't make the experience entirely valueless. First of all, it's fun and interesting, just like riding a roller coaster, reading a book about optical illusions, or listening to music.
Second, many of the insights gained are actually valuable. Not as much as they initially appear under the influence of the drug, but still valuable afterwards. It's an occasion to explore thoughts under many angle, to make connections between unrelated topics. You'll end up throwing out more than half of the ideas the next day, but a few might stick.
We forget sometimes that the mind both thinks about stuff and thinks about thinking.
If you think about making a breakthrough, it is a two stage process. First you have to think the thing, then you have to assess that thing and come to the conclusion that it is a breakthrough. And that in turn makes you feel a certain way.
Often when we dream, or a hallucinate a 'breakthrough' - we're not actually dreaming or hallucinating the thing itself, we're dreamng or hallucinating either of the following stages, we're imagining the experience of assessing something as a breakthrough, or just directly feeling the emotion that would result from a breakthrough.
Because of the way our brains are wired to see causality, we assume that it must be because we actually had the thing that caused the breakthrough. But, tantalisingly, we can't remember exactly what it was. It was awesome, perfect, we remember that, but what exactly, that's gone now, damnit.
I think LSD can definitely expand the mind in the sense of letting you experience the mind in a different way. But I'm very skeptical that 'insights' can be brought back from a trip. The excitement and emotion of that insight, certainly, but the actual insight itself seems never to be quite explicit.
Reminds me of my first experience. The trip involved getting something huge, like a big sense of "oh, I finally get it" but now, 3 years later, I'm still trying to figure out what I actually got.
What I got from LSD upon reflection was that my mental pre-processor (what assigns learned categorical and pattern information to incoming data) limits my perception, leading me to overlook important details about the new data, and causing me to lazily follow the same old thought patterns as if on rails. It's often necessary to ignore everything we think we know and look at our current situation with fresh eyes in order to progress.
Interestingly, this was the same reaction Aldous Huxley had to taking psychedelics. He wrote about the experience in "The Doors Of Perception", the book from which "The Doors" (band) got their name. I believe the quote originally comes from William Blake.
> “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.”
Trauma and large life changes can also have a similar effect of reframing our views. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is based around the idea of framing/context being important and largely habitual without applying concious effort
It's possible that certain insights, realizations, concepts, or thoughts are not easily transferable or translatable from one mind-state to another.
Also, selective amnesia is a common effect of various drugs, including high-dose LSD trips. Dreams are also easy to forget upon waking, leading some to recommend that you try to make what you do remember from dreams (and from trips) concrete in ordinary waking consciousness, through artifacts such as art, music, etc.
Some psychological theories posit that there is a mechanism of repression that occurs when the mind resists the brining of certain subconscious material to consciousness. This is one reason that some therapists recommend one does not venture too deeply in to the subconscious without a trained guide. You might not be ready to handle what you find on your own.
>Feynman was rumored to have used LSD in the late 1960s a handful of times. Feynman denied using hallucinogens, saying he was too scared to damage his brain, but there are credible reports that he did take LSD at least once around 1970.
LSD seems to disproportionately affect the mind's capacity to visualize complex systems and relationships, so even if you aren't being all that novel or insightful in your thinking, the ability to really see what you're pondering in a larger and more detailed way than you've ever experienced can feel like an incredible aha moment, even if you haven't actually figured anything out. The glamor of the vision can be seductive.
Another issue is that it can be very difficult to stay focused long enough to transcribe what you're experiencing mentally in any sort of comprehensible way. Just as you're a few words into your description of a vast and intricate concept, 5 completely new ones come rolling in.
Not that I'm any sort of expert, but the solution seems to be various forms of mental discipline. Meditation and trying to remain a dispassionate observer (versus an impassioned epiphany seeker) can help to slow things down and make the experience less chaotic.
Before trying it, get yourself some diazepam, like e.g. xanax or valium, this is a very good treatment if the trip is getting too wild and it will take you down in less than 30-45 minutes, at least to a level where you can relax. This is your "life jacket" and will strongly reduce the danger of your experience becoming a bad trip, just because you will know that you can easily get out if you want to.
Do not buy from strangers, ask an experienced person you can trust. There is a lot of much more dangerous stuff on the black market sold as LSD that can seriously harm your liver or other organs. Having a good trusted source is extremely important. If you can allow, try to get clean, professionally produced substance from switzerland (ask psychologists or other doctors who are open to this).
Do not take it if you are in trouble, emotional stress, despair or feel overwhelmed by your personal situation. This substance will not solve any problems for you. Clean your life up as much as possible before doing it. Yes, LSD is still used to overcome heavy depressions and other serious problems, like e.g. alcoholism, but such a treatment will most likely only succeed with professional psychological care and is a long term process.
Good advice. Just wanted to make a small correction: Valium is diazepam and Xanax is alprazolam, both are benzodiazepines. Most benzodiazepines (and "nonbenzodiazepines"[1]) are effective for the use mentioned.
> lsd was and is a mythological drug in every sense of the word. Nothing you know about it is true either to the good or to the bad.
This is false, LSD is the most researched psychedelic of them all and while we're not entirely sure of the mechanics of its actions (nor do we know of any of these kinds of brain mechanics, that's why the prescription of anti-depressants seems to be more of a guessing game than a science), we're definitely sure of a few things that occur.
mythological in the sense that all sorts of people build up myths about it and it's supposed powers.
( blinding flashes of insight, make you throw yourself off buildings, make you a god, make you an ant, turn your world inside out, heal all traumas, traumatize the most mentally sound, etc. etc. )
Now while there has been some scientific study of LSD's biopharmacology there is an unfortunate tendency for researchers to sample the product and then become evangelists for the drug. Which tends to render their methodology suspect; Leary being only the most notorious example.
LSD is a drug just the same as alcohol and painkillers. There are many irresponsible ways to use it. It is nonetheless something that can be used responsibly.
LSD has many whimsical properties. Many of the things that you see and believe while on the drug have no basis in reality. It can nonetheless change your outlook on the world for the better. It can change the things that you perceive to be valuable in the world, and typically you end up valuing both people and nature more after your experience.
A frequent theme among newbies is "I learned that people are really important, and that I should help them more." Surely this is a good lesson to learn.
> 4. Be skeptical, read the literature; understand the risks you are taking.
is bad? Is the idea that we should turn off critical thought and blindly accept pro-LSD arguments, while blindly rejecting the anti-LSD arguments? That seems backwards.
Yeah, but you know the drill, I'm inviting the down votes. When I have conclusive data on what I'm working on here, you and Dang will definitely be the first to know.
Either way, thank you for the commentary. There have been times I actually didn't understand the downvotes, and your posts were rather enlightening.
I'm sorry, I don't quite get what you're trying to say. Are you saying that using/taking drugs is a prerequisite for talking about drugs (and drug use in general)?
If so: That's total nonsense and an unbelievably unscientific attitude.
I'd say the first point is kind of important, considering it's a synthetic drug and not a plant. I have no anecdotes for LSD, but a few people died in my city after only a normal dose of ecstasy (no alcohol).
Ecstacy is known to cause the body temperature to rise. People write it off as just being the club, alcohol, etc. For some people, the temperature becomes high enough to cause death.
This doesn't have anything to do with drug purity and has everything to do with the effects of the drug itself.
Millions of people take MDMA every weekend. Deaths from pure MDMA have happened, but they are extremely rare. It's important to think about risk from a statistical point of view. Everything has risks.
To be fair, I think that you are more likely to get a bad batch of a "party drug" like ecstacy than LSD. Though I can't really talk from experience here, it would seem (to me) that party drugs are more popular and would attract more people to cut corners to turn a quick buck.
What about that is straw man? I don't think you have a full understanding of the fallacy. The wikipedia definition is
"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument."
I haven't misrepresented your argument in any way since I haven't represented your argument in any way. I never claimed you claimed anything. It isn't fallacious to ask someone to clarify an argument.
You didn't explicitly state your argument (or anything of substance), so I asked what you were actually trying to claim.
You van insult my post all you want, but you're blind if you honestly think your reply wasn't a misrepresentation of my original statement, unless you can prove that I said exactly what you said I did in the post before I pointed out the straw man.
Questions aren't assertions, and one of the requirements for straw man is asserting you hold a position.
I'm done with this discussion at this point. I don't think you really have a concrete claim regarding the topic and you are avoiding creating one by derailing the conversation by arguing my question is fallacious.
From my experience, I would liken LSD to peanuts. The vast majority of people out there can have a handful of peanuts with no problems. They may like the flavor or not but it won't cause long term harm. A small percentage are allergic and will have a reaction to peanuts ranging from mild sickness to death. LSD is similar, a small percentage of people will have problems mentally with LSD. It might last just a little while, it might cause (or trigger) life long problems. If you are unsure, take a tiny dose, maybe a 1/4 hit and see what happens. Or better yet, take a tiny dose of psilocybin mushrooms as they are the easiest to come down quickly from. Just eat a meal and you will be mostly down in about 45 minutes.
The other thing I discovered was once the paranoia starts to invade every trip consistently, you have learned all there is to learn and it's time to move on. I was annoyed with the paranoia and tried to work through it, though I was somewhat successful, LSD was just not that much fun anymore...
As someone with 10 years drug experience, I'll agree with you.
I often see people say LSD is provably safe, when we don't even understand the brain.
I'd say instead that it's empirically proven that some people have suffered from negative psychological side-effects for months after an experience. You just have to read boards. From what I've read, it can last up to 6 months.
A female friend of mine actually had panic attacks for a while after. It's rare but it happens. And from my own experience, I'd say it has changed me probably more than anything else I tried, in ways I can't describe. I'd rather see someone responsible take ecstasy once or once a year, even though it's addictive and potentially neurotoxic, especially without antioxidants, it tends to be a spectacularly positive experience, emotionally and psychologically, a lifetime event. Also there are studies about how it may help against neurosis, shyness and all. And doing it with close friends or a lover, will give memories to cherish. At least it did for me. It's dangerously addictive and very negatively connotated, it doesn't have the esoterically intellectual marketing appeal of LSD, but I'd dare say it's more intellectually interesting, in that its rewards are clear, human and real.
There are a lot of people who take LSD regularly, so it's not that risky, but it's not trivial, especially for intellectual people with anxiety, higher sensitivity, and often difficult lives and childhood. But it's certainly interesting and perspective-shifting.
1. When in doubt, get a testing kit from dancesafe.org and test a sample. This has saved me on a few separate occasions, as 2-C's get passed around as a cheap substitute.
2-4. The past and present purveyors of L treat the substance as sacred. Even though the laboratory synthesis of LSD is rather difficult, it's still rarely sold and usually gifted to fortunate or lost individuals.
Authentication and quality control are obviously problematic with "illegal" (statist BS) drugs. While customer feedback on anonymous marketplaces does provide some assurance, it is easily gameable.
Still, LSD is so potent that adulteration is not a serious risk. Few drugs are hazardous, let alone effective, at doses well under 1 mg. And those that are would not likely be sold as LSD, but rather explicitly as poisons.
Blotter and windowpane are the safest dosage forms, because there is less capacity for adulterants. Starting with a low dose is prudent for many reasons. There's a good discussion of progressive dosing strategy in PiHKAL.
If someone purchases prescription medications from a non-regulated online pharmacy in a remote, third-world country is that simply a legal risk too?
Unless you synthesized it yourself or have the ability to analyze it in a lab, you absolutely cannot be certain of quality or authenticity. This is what legally enforced regulatory standards are all about ensuring. The illegal nature of the drug trade not only lacks provision for that, it influences and informs the behavior of participants on the supply side for economic reasons too.
In a logical vacuum, yes, it is a legal risk. In practical application, the legal risk is often correlated with the quality risk too.
Risk of manufacturing error in prescription drugs: "Dr. Collazo recently worked with a drug manufacturer that had a baseline rate of 4.7 errors per thousand units manufactured."
Risk of ??????:
"Three batches of Nurofen Plus in pharmacies in south London have been found to contain another drug, Seroquel XL 50mg, which is manufactured by AstraZeneca – a completely separate drug company."
That's all entirely fair to point out - clearly serious breaches happen, even in heavily regulated environments! I don't think failings in those arenas undermine the notion that legal risk and quality/authenticity risk of illegal drugs is very often intertwined.
I think even folks over at Erowid advise caution in dealing with these things. In that regard, conflating legal risk & qualitative risk isn't really a non sequitur. That's really all I was trying to say.
I understand your point, but - as you identify - LSD users are more aware of the risks and have a higher perception of risk.
Although I don't have evidence either way, my suspicion is that this results in a comparatively low risk in truth. It's not immediate that the legal status impacts on the risk at all.
Some people assume that taking LSD gives you some kind of super abilities which would make one more competitive in this world, but it's not what the experience is about.
Yes, while tripping, your mind can handle infinity or galactic-sized data sets, visualise abstract concepts and zoom in and out of matter or numbers, but I don't think that's the true power of this substance.
The real power comes from the realisation of who you really are and always have been, it's like you finally 'remember' that this life is just one in an infinity of previous and future 'lives' and that everyone and everything is you. It's the realisation of the fact that you (and everyone else) are in fact God who came into this body to feel separated from himself, that the Universe is some kind of cosmic simulation which you've created since the beginning of time.
This realisation is what frees people from the mundane reality of existence and gives one courage to embark on the craziest of endeavours, which sometimes have the side effect of changing the entire world.
Hm, it is too well articulated (people on LSD have trouble to explain even approximately their state of mind), and too precise match to Vedanta philosophy, that I have suspicion that you inherit this formulation either directly from Vedanta / Yoga / Sankhya or from people interested in eastern culture (as hippies and enthusiasts of "mind-expansion" in 60-ies), and then decided their drug experience was exactly this.
I've never practiced eastern philosophy, but it's not surprising that people arrive at the same conclusions on psychedelics.
See, psychedelic plants/fungi have been around since before humans and people who took them, say, 3000 years ago had the same trips and the same realisations that we have today.
Then they came back and wrote about their conclusions, which has sometimes led to the creations of new philosophies or religions.
This is one other realisation that you have while tripping - "I have been in this state before, many times before, but not in this body, I was a yogi in India or a shaman in South America or a philosopher in ancient Greece and I've always remembered: I am. It's always been me."
I thought maybe you was influenced by people accompanying you. But I also did some reading and see that loss of self-identity is an often symptom caused by psychedelics, so I don't know.
BTW, eastern practitioners explicitly advice against drug use, they employ other methods to achieve and retain this state of mind: bhakti (love), jnana (knowledge - means analysing the difference between thoughts and thinking process and Atman - the Self who perceives them), karma yoga, raja yoga, etc.
Some people fall into this state spontaneously, Ramana Maharishi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi) got this "enlightenment" at 16, and didn't speak several years after that.
I enjoy reading eastern texts, as artifacts of brilliant thought, also interesting in context of our development towards AI, where we still don't have satisfying theory for consciousness (that Vedanta calls atman). They have also accumulated interesting theories and terminology about mind mechanics. But I think it's worth to remain skeptical. After all, those strange states of mind may be just dysfunctions. For example, anoxaemia, inhaling vapors of glues and varnishes, sensory and motor deprivation induce "special effects" on cognition and mind too.
This is exactly what I've felt on a couple separate occasions (both on mushrooms and ayahuasca). The trouble is the rational/ego-based mind kicks in as soon as I'm off them and I begin to question the validity of these assumptions. Whilst sober it seems ridiculous, but whilst on these substances, it's sober everyday life which seems truly ridiculous, like it was so obviously staged and unreal and how could I have not seen it? Ultimately I'm always led back to the same conclusion: we don't and won't ever really know anything beyond our own qualia.
A really beautiful explanation! Here I was going to suggest you to try ayahuasca (since you came up with that from LSD, aya makes it so much more obvious and intense) but then I looked at your username and realized "ah he gets it".
Always nice to find other people with the same views regarding these substances and how they act on us! Specially since I never thought I'd find such interests on HN.
I did some LSD about 35 years ago. More than once.
For a few days afterward it utterly knackered my ability to write good code, or do anything that required concentrated, logical thinking. Also, I felt like crap (think "bad mental hangover" without the horrible side-effects caused by alcohol).
That said, it was a pretty interesting experience. I highly recommend it, just not habitually. Someone (Timothy Leary?) said that the best way to do LSD would be in a sunny English meadow with the Archbishop of Canterbury as your companion.
I know some people who take LSD habitually and I can't imagine how they do it. Personally I'm like you, it feels amazing and is a great way to relax, but I need about a day or two afterward to really let the whole experience settle in.
That was 2006, DMT is the Geek's drug in 2015. The businessman's trip is a lot shorter and cleaner than this shit. You take 1 tab of LSD and you will be going for 10+ hours solid. DMT however - you just throw up some fractals on the external monitors, sprinkle it on some ganja, and then get transported to another universe for 15 minutes that may feel like hours actually. It's great for creative design as it is more a "symmetrical" experience than LSD. It occurs naturally in the brain and is hypothesized to be released by the pineal gland during birth, death, mental illness, falling in love, having children etc.
Some people have reported "aliens" or "mechanical elves" in their experiences with DMT. (I never had anything like this though oddly) This could explain a lot of those area 51 alien reports though - the CIA could have very well have tested this substance alongside LSD in the MKULTRA experiments of the 50's and 60's and had a few test subjects genuinely think they saw aliens due to the fact they unknowingly ingested a psychedelic chemical. Wow, that theory is worthy of a conspiracy Keanu meme....
An example of LSD's effect on art: [1] More details here [2]
Then there's the visionary art[3] of Alex Gray.[4]
There's a great book that documents studies done on LSD's effect on creativity.[5]
On the subject of music, LSD famously influenced the Beatles,[6] and many other 60's bands... and which, in turn influenced many others. In fact, there's a very good chance that most if not all of the contemporary music you like to was directly or indirectly influenced by drugs of one sort or another.
The Beatles heavily used alcohol and tobacco too. But really, they were three of the century's most talented and most hardworking musicians with incredible managers and producers and almost unlimited resources.
I can't prove it, but I don't believe there is a causative link between tripping on LSD and writing great music. I do believe there is a causative link between working hard and practicing a lot and writing great music.
For the record, Bob Dylan was baptised in the 70:ties. And if you believe LSD influenced the Beatles, then by the same logic, Jesus influenced Bob Dylan.
On the other hand, there is substantial evidence that LSD changed the Beatles' music qualitatively. They first took the drug in summer 1965. Their next album, Rubber Soul, written and recorded in fall and winter 1965 was a major stylistic shift.
Well, I'm still waiting for the fellowship of LSD-fueled Übermenschen to emerge. Until then I'll just try to eat well, exercise more and get enough sleep. That seems to be the key for most elite developers I've encountered.
Hmm. Maintaining your health in the standard ways is really good. Please keep it up. I'll try, too.
But it bothers me a little bit when you seem put it as if LSD fails at being some kind of neo-caffeine that makes people smarter, more productive, etc.
It really does fail to do that. But that's not how it helps. It's not necessarily that it gives you the answers to the questions you're asking -- it's more like it helps you get perspective and perhaps realize you could be asking better questions.
To me it's as if we typically get kind of tunnel vision of the mind. Imagine if, for a few hours, you could zoom out from your current vantage point, see it compressed, as if from a great height, or maybe at high speed, and suddenly it's much easier to see structures that were much too big/subtle/slow to appreciate before. Or you at least get an inkling that such things exist and that you might want to look for them.
It's very frustrating to evangelize LSD sometimes because it probably will not help you in the ways you care about right now. But it very well may help you in ways you literally cannot understand right now.
I'll take a step back even from your more modest assessment, and say that well-rounded people are better at programming (among other things) and an LSD experience can add a bit of roundedness to someone who already pushes their comfort zone-- and thats the real extent of LSD's benefit. Just another way to step outside yourself, with all the limited benefit and risk that entails.
If you read "What the Dormouse Said" by John Markoff you could reach the conclusion that a fellowship of LSD-fueled Übermenschen existed during the 60's and 70's and we had the personal computer revolution as a result. And no, I'm not talking just about Steve Jobs and Apple, there were many people involved with the nascent computer industry who turned on, tuned in and dropped out at that time.
It's an interesting book. I think the author is too uncritical and not very good at providing the nuances of the ground reality. I do agree with at least a presupposition of the book, which is that the experimental mindset of the time allowed the personal computer industry to come into being.
It is absolutely vital to remember that the corporate computer industry (E.g., IBM, DEC, even the LispMs) were (i) alive (ii) vital, and (iii) doing things that were not to be replicated in PCs until the late 90s & early 2000s. So it'd be a bit interesting to consider the counterfactual "what if no Jobs hasn't been the marketer he was? what if Gates hadn't hustled the way he did?"
The article mentions Kary Mullis' use of LSD helped him develop the polymerase chain reaction, which revolutionized genetics and for which he won a Nobel Prize.
But I suspect from your tone that I could give a thousand examples and you wouldn't change your mind. C'est la vie.
You are unlikely to see them go public while it is forbidden to do so, but the list of people who used LSD includes some pretty interesting people.
Personally I run on sleep and quietness, but I think I would be able to put cannabis to good use when it becomes legal where I live. I have found that small quantities allow for a greater concentration on the condition that you refrain smoking to much and not drink any alcohol.
"There have been no documented human deaths from an LSD overdose.[51] It is physiologically well tolerated and there is no evidence for long-lasting physiological effects on the brain or other parts of the human organism.[52]"
I think you misunderstand. Survivorship bias in this context means we do not know all of the people who did LSD that did not go on to do anything significant. Therefore it is pointless to suggest LSD has overlap with "interesting people."
On the other hand, every time this topic comes up here or elsewhere, the majority of stories are positive, with a few horror stories (fewer than I'd expect for such an intense experience).
'Survivorship bias' is a misleading term for what you intend to imply, because those who have had a bad LSD experience are no less capable of sharing their intense experience except in the most extreme cases (i.e. when they didn't, in fact, survive). Personally, if I had such an intensely bad experience I'd be quite willing to share it so that others can avoid it. That is just not reflected the balance of stories I read though.
"Turn on, tune in, drop out" is probably not very conducive to the mainstream conception of "success"... With that said, it's a trip, it can be both rough, frightening and utterly rewarding. I don't think anyone claims that you'll automatically become some demi-God by traveling, but it certainly broadens your horizons.
Participants eager to describe their modern-day spiritual LSD experiences were encouraged to contribute to a library of drug experiences on the Erowid website
Reminded me of a paper I've been meaning to read where machine learning was applied to erowid reports of different substances:
Article L.3421-4 of the "Code de la Santé Publique" (law concerning public health) forbids incitation/encouragement of the usage or traffic of classified narcotics, even if it does not lead to anyone actually using them. The sentence is heaviest if it's done near schools. Isn't there something vaguely equivalent in US law?
The interesting part is that the act of presenting classified narcotics under a favorable light (in press for example) is punishable under the same article.
In some regards this is pretty vague, and I've seen government-funded studies that end up presenting cannabis "in a favorable light", so I'm not sure how much this is enforced.
"Isn't there something vaguely equivalent in US law?"
Nope. The closest would probably be plans to make nuclear bombs. Oh, and the stupid thing about crypto. If I was bored enough right now I'd paste some long crypto key, but it would just make this thread look shitty.
In the same vein, Freakonomics just did an interview with Wired and WELL co-founder Kevin Kelly, talking about the hippie origins of SV and the personal computer:
From 2006. Interesting article, not really much about it being a "Geek Drug" apart from the first couple of paragraphs about one programmer's use of it, and a little bit about the late Steve Jobs experience but it has plenty of background information.
I don't see any connection between LSD and geek culture, except for the one programmer who happened to be at that conference.
I'd go further and say that I don't see a strong connection between geek culture and the countercultural movement in general. I see it as a carrot and stick approach by the left. On the one hand, the stick is attacking geek culture as a bunch of sexist racist losers. The carrot is allowing geek culture to be co-opted (recuperated, to use a long out of fashion term) by the countercultural movement. We are allowed to celebrate "hacking" as long as it is considered as part of the grand tradition of countercultural rebellion.
Human biology is an extreme hurdle on our way to achieve the unachievable: having to sleep, eat, excrete etc. Are there any tech and drugs being developed to deal with these things? For now I'd be contempt to at least control my sexuality :D
Going a few days w/o much food is quite easy for some of us, -I would skip meals after 1800 in the evening and then skip breakfast and then I could go a few days w/o more than a couple of glasses of orange juice a day. I only did this for less than a week. My uncle said most of the good effects started kicking in after a 3-5 days.
As usual, be careful, I'd say have sugar around.
As for the last point you mentioned there are drugs for this, I just have a feeling you'd rather try without but I'm no expert.
I've actually been doing that on and off since I think around last August. I've found it tremendously beneficial to overall feeling of well being, as well as my work ethic. Especially for programming, I feel much more involved and interested in my work so am usually able to work at a much faster pace. I also share the feeling of being more personable on LSD, as the days when I do microdose, I tend to have far better and deeper conversations with many of my friends.
I'd be very interested in experimenting with low doses of certain psychedelics, but the unknown quality, unknown provenance, full dose approach just doesn't appeal to me anymore. I wonder where you could find good quality crystal (or somehow measurable) LSD unless you pal around with very cool chemists. That's the big problem with interesting sounding illegal dugs.
I've been interested in trying LSD since my friend offered but am hesitant because I don't know how it will interact with my medication (SSRIs).
On a side note, I do like to smoke weed while I'm studying/coding. Things that were not so easily apparent to me before being high often become a given and understanding concepts comes more naturally. It's easier for me to picture in my head how data is being manipulated and where it's going in memory. My skills are only at an intermediate level so this is really helpful when I'm trying to learn more advanced stuff.
SSRIs are known to reduce the effects of hallucinogens.
LSD, and hallucinogens in general are extremely useful in personal growth. The novelty of 'reality' literally breaking down can be quite a thrill; and for many people it will be the first time it has ever happened to them; though it can be incredibly frightening as well.
I have been around several people on various SSRIs while they have taken mushrooms or lsd (and one on DMT); it seemed to always be a non-issue.
The title of that article seems irresponsible IMO. If someone seeks out LSD on their own I don't see a problem with it, but I wouldn't want to be the one who encouraged them.
So we have Lsd, amphetamine, mescaline, ritalin, provigil as mind drugs. Anyone tried Ritalin or provigil long term?
The army uses amphetamine & provigil during long term flying missing during critical operations. So what is illegal for ordinary citizens is legal for the state.
Side not Steve Jobs tried a lot of drugs in India probably a door opener for his mind as have a lot of brilliant rock artists danger being not over using or wasting your talent.
I do not use drugs personally but I find it an interesting subject.
I've been taking adderall(similar to Ritalin) since I was about 12, I'm 22 now. I have actual ADHD and cannot function at work without it, I cannot focus on one thing for more than a few minutes tops. I'm a software developer so this is a huge problem. I had hoped I would grow out of this so I didn't have to take it but I don't see that happening anymore.
AFAIK it hasn't had any negative long term effects on me, short term it kills my appetite so I have to force myself to eat. It was a problem when I was younger, I was severely underweight during highschool but I've been able to manage my weight well for the past few years.
There was an attempt to put me on Ritalin in school. This was quickly aborted because my mother was told about it and almost defenestrated the vice principal over it (third story window, so that counts for something).
Giving continued-used psychotropics to developing brains is an excellent recipe for fostering lifelong addiction.
I've been taking it 5 times a week for the past 10 years and I'm not addicted to it in the slightest. Whenever I go on vacation or have longer periods off of work or school I stop and I never feel the urge to take it.
My understanding is that it's nearly always only addictive if it's taken in recreational doses. If prescribed medically, the dose is usually too low for addiction to occur.
> The army uses amphetamine & provigil during long term flying missing during critical operations. So what is illegal for ordinary citizens is legal for the state.
i have no military experience, but wouldn't the army administer these drugs through medical professionals in a narrow set of circumstances, like a civilian doctor would? i doubt soldiers are allowed to take these meds whenever they want.
amphetamines (adderall) and provigil are prescribed to civilian citizens as well.
Provigil is legal, if prescribed, as it is for pilots. So is amphetamine - that's what Adderall is. I've taken Provigil and actively take Adderall (by prescription, diagnosed with ADD as an adult, best thing I ever did for my career).
Their effects are, ultimately, similar, though with a different time to onset and duration of effect.
As a developer whose (suspected) ADD has been growing worse over the years, I think your post just convinced me to see a doctor about it. It's making work more and more difficult for me.
I struggled with seeing things through (projects, homework, household tasks) amidst a cacophonous riot of distractions competing for my directionless attention. I thought I was broken. I really did. I did my own research into numerous mental conditions because I actually thought i might have something deeply wrong with me.
Turns out, it's mostly chemical. You have no idea how freeing that was to discover, to lay down those burdens and recognize that I'm just wired differently, and that my unusual wiring can be an amazing advantage if only I could control that one thing: where my attention goes.
First day on Adderall, and I literally felt like a superhero, I got so much shit done. I'm told that neurotypical folks who take Adderall just get revved up.
But if you have ADD, your brain either makes too little dopamine, or the re-uptake of dopamine is revved up. So your brain is constantly and subconsciously seeking the reward of novelty by taking over your normally conscious ability to direct your attention (something most people take for granted).
And Adderall changes that. It gives you the ability that most people have to control where their attention goes, even if the task isn't particularly novel or exciting.
People without it just don't understand how I can say I can't control my attention, it's such an alien concept to them. I can control it, as long as its focused on something exciting and new. Tasks were due "now" or "not now", and "not now" just wasn't very exciting for my brain's wiring. Oh, look, a chicken!
It was literally a life changing decision for me. I never regretted it. Never felt like I was giving in. Never felt like I lost a part of myself to the drugs.
Hell, some days, I still feel like a superhero.
Get a referral if you need one to see a psychiatrist, unless your general physician is well versed in dosage and formulations for the stimulants (there are two major kinds and one may end up being significantly better for your particular wiring). And get your heart checked too - amphetamines and heart rhythm defects don't go together.
That's my rambling (meds wore off a long time ago!) and too-late reply, and I hope you discover it.
Thank you very much for this, it's given me a lot of hope. Your pre-Adderall experience sounds completely identical to my life as it is now.
I've always avoided seeing a doctor about it because of horror stories I've heard about Ritalin and Adderall from friends and strangers. I don't want to become dependent on any sort of drug, or at least not in a way that affects me in the long term or causes serious withdrawal issues. If it actually does the job with tolerable side effects I'd be okay with taking it for the rest of my life.
I'm going to arrange an appointment in the near future.
Stimulants can essentially directly increase your intelligence for a time. You think faster, answers can just pop into your head faster, you can code faster. Laser focus, a sense of unlimited capability, too. A more realistic version of the movie "Limitless".
They don't seem to help with creativity, and can do the opposite. It's easy to get concentrated on the wrong thing. I knew a PHP dev on pro vigil long term, and when he'd take an extra dose of stims, you could tell. A flurry of good idea emails in the morning, then disappeared into his office all day.
But... One time, he spent all day trying to optimize the platform for TLB misses. From PHP code, that made a MySQL call every ten lines. Without the hyper focus and drive of stims, no way anyone would waste a day chasing down such crazy thing. (What annoyed me even more was that this useless but "hard" work received a lot of respect from people that understood less...)
So simulants are best taken when one has a clear idea of what to work on and can get into that work right away. In many cases, I think they're a win, and for thought focused work, like students, mathematicians, programmers, simulants should be more widely available legally. Why should we not want most of the population to have performance enhancing medication? As you note, the state is well aware of the effectiveness.
Also note that stimulants can cause psychosis over time, so there is some risk in having everyone use them all the time. But a measured use, like an afterburner, seems like a good thing to have available.
The only counter example I have is professional high-level chess players. In typical tournaments they play seven games each taking three hours each. While it's just as competitive a "sport" as football, they don't take any stimulants stronger than orange juice and green tea.
This is why I don't think any performance enhancing drugs work for the average human. Because if there was, thousands of chess players would already have used and abused the shit out of them.
Chess orgs do have anti drug policies and test, although this mostly seems driven by nitwit ideas from the Olympics and Wada. If coffee works, it's likely amphetamines work too, although taking them during a game might be noticeable.
Yes there are very anachronistic drug enforcement rules in use in chess. My point is that no chess player has ever gotten caught using performance enhancers, nor has any chess player admitted to using any of the legal drugs. There are a lot of cheaters in chess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borislav_Ivanov), and if there was any mind enhancing drugs that used for chess I'm pretty sure they would be used by a lot of players, legal or not.
I used to take Ritalin, and it had serious negative effects on me after a while. When it would wear off I would become depressed and unable to do anything until the next morning when I would take it again. Since then I've been diagnosed with depression in addition to my ADHD, so it's possible that the Ritalin simply exacerbated an existing condition.
I do sometimes wonder if the depression is caused by the fact that I've taken stimulants of one kind or another for most of my adult life, as I don't recall ever being depressed as a child or teenager, at least not in the same way that I recall having ADHD.
I could talk about recreational drugs too (I used psychedelics from time to time in college), but I don't have much profound to say, aside from that you get out of them what you put in, and setting has a large effect on whether it's a mind-opening experience or not.
Dihexa probably has more potential for this generation as a "geek wonder drug." There are people at Longecity who had the compound synthesized and are taking mega doses.
My theory is that there is NO direct correlation between drugs like cannabis or LSD and creativity.
I know some talented people, experiences when I was young was watching friends "stoned"/"high" but talking utter crap! The next day after the trip (without fail) these already smart people "think" they have said or done something profound, but they never did!
Days later, their own creative genius is pushed on a search to find out what they said or did that was so profound/creative. Sometimes they do something amazing, but most of the time they don't!
When I was 20 at university (I'm in my 30s now) a friend of mine took cannabis and LSD for the first time. It was not something I did, not because of any moral high ground, but because it also kinda scared me. During the nightout he started to act really strange, bad trip everyone assumed. That weekend (the day after) his mum called asking us all what he had taken, he had been sectioned under the mental health act. It turned out his family had a history of mental health problems. He was sectioned for almost 2 years and never finished Uni.
Not to discount your observations of a couple of your friends, but if you look at actual scientific studies of LSD's effect on creativity,[1] there is a very clear link.
That said, it's not a panacea or a magic pill. You are not guaranteed to become more creative when you take LSD. You most likely will not become Mozart or Picasso by taking it. It is even possible to misuse or abuse LSD, as you can misuse and abuse alcohol, food, water, and sex.
My own observations of people having unproductive experiences from psychedelics is that they take them in ignorance, without much if any education about what they're taking, without proper respect (ie. to just "party" or "have fun" or as attempted distractions or escapes from lives that are miserable in various ways), in an unsupportive or even actively hostile context, without planning, and without a goal.
They often believe in all sorts of urban myths about LSD and other psychedelics (like that taking LSD seven times makes you "clinically insane", or that LSD damages your chromosomes or makes you stare in to the sun until you go blind, etc), they often mix drugs (which can be very dangerous -- especially when one of those drugs is alcohol), and do really stupid things like driving under the influence.
Is it any wonder that such situations and attitudes lead to bad outcomes? Should drugs be blamed for what happens? Or could some responsiblity for what happens be laid on the shoulders of the people who choose to use them in stupid ways, or on the society that keeps them ignorant or tries to lie about the effects of these drugs or actively tries to harm drug users, or at least make constructive, safe use of these substances very difficult and dangerous?
About your friend who was "sectioned" (I presume this refers to involuntary confinement to a mental institution), it sounds like you know very little of what actually happened to him or his psychological state before or after the incident. I would not be surprised if his family (who you admit have had mental problems of their own) or the authorities overreacted, and that his confinement to the mental institution might have been a much worse experience than his LSD trip.
Finally, an LSD trip can be a very emotionally intense experience. Emotionally intense experiences of any kind could trigger psychotic episodes in succeptable individuals. Such people could have a psychotic episode without any being drugs involved. People with family history of mental illness would do well to be extra cautious before engaging in any activity that might result in an emotionally intense experience.
I agree, my few experiences don't prove anything. He mixed LSD, cannabis and alcohol on that night. I also agree, I knew very little about his mental health before that day. His section (involuntary confinement to a mental institution) was not taken lightly. What I do know is Doctors said the drugs (cannabis and LSD) had triggered an underlining mental illness. He developed severe paranoid personality disorder (PPD).
The other point you made is incredibly important, taking such drugs does not guaranteed you will become more creative. It is important you research, why you want to take it and your current/past health problems.
After a lot of research I have personally have taken nootropics on and off for many years. As a programmer I often work long hours, I need to function and problem solve. I found them to aid in learning and memory. Nasty ADHD drugs give me side effects and are just legalised amphetamines. Nootropics like Aniracetam seem to have the same effect with little to no side effects (for me).
why did I have to scroll all the way down to find somebody that sounds like he knows what he's talking about? a great majority of discussion in this thread is of abysmal quality. legendary HN moderators failed spectacularly this time.
My friend and university classmate - a kind of wounderkind.
He was accepted to university without exams, because he had great results on programming olympics.
Turned out he was also good at chemistry. When he was around 8 his mother arranged him to take
chemistry classes with elder schoolchildren. But he dropped the classes because he was borred - he already
knew everything taught there.
In university he tried drugs (marijuana, mushrooms). He also bought Hofmann's book with all the formulas and started cooking himslef.
One day he jumped off the roof of their apartment building. His mother found him.
She said at first sight she thought it was some garbadge on the street, and then recognized her son.
On his computer he left open Richard Bach's book, with selection active on the phrase "you can fly, Jonathan".
He left a note between pages of the Exupéry's book (I don't know exactly on what place, his relatives
hadn't pay to that at the moment). The note said to dispel the ashes over the ocean.
The guy doesn't care - he is dead and feels nothing. But it was horrible to see his mother, and father too. He was the only child.
This case makes me doubt LSD and drugs in general are harmless.
I also have evidence the "inspiration" when you're on drugs is false, and actually it's more like a delirium.
Please, don't promote drugs.
UPDATE:
Surprisingly, some people even down-vote this comment, and convince me in telling false story. If so, what are my motives?
If you care, you can find plenty of documented evidence of drugs danger.
BTW, he jumped not because he "convinced himself he can fly", as many commenters suggested. His note said to dispel the ashes over the ocean.
If you heard something similar before - it doesn't make the story false, other way around, looks like such things happened more than once. In my case I am describing a real person I knew for years, and was present on his funeral.
This thread, and many comments here suggest a conspiracy theory -like idea, that anti drug laws and information is a malicious and false propaganda, imposed by state and society. Sorry, but it's just stupid.
It is irresponsible and inappropriate to promote drugs (LSD or whatever). And off-topic for Hacker News. There are people who unstable, who have internal emotional conflicts, etc. For them drug use may be a catastrophe.
You are fear-mongering and your argument is pure pathos. If the guy was cooking, he probably wasn't doing LSD at the time of death. LSD is notoriously difficult to homebrew and it was more likely he was doing something that we actually have reason to believe is bad for you.
All drugs aren't the same and blanketing them all as negative because somebody died on a specific drug is ridiculous.
I know this is not the main point of your post, but the part that I feel I can comment on:
> I also have evidence the "inspiration" whe[n] you [are] on drugs is false, and actually it's more like a delirium.
What does that mean, "false"? The way some of us usually perceive reality might not be true either. Just ask someone suffering from serious depression. It's often a problem of perspective, but they can't simply change that. Being stuck in a particular view also applies to most ordinary people, although this does not necessarily cause suffering. The people who claim LSD is mind-expanding refer to just this: That it might allow you to make such a change of perspective that you otherwise can't.
(I don't mean to say drugs are the way to go if your depressed, by the way. Maybe try meditation.)
What I mean, changes in reasoning on drugs are largely glitches, reasoning mistakes due to wrong logical connections and associations between things, which are not really associate. It's like a delirium.
But because drugs also induce euphoria, people think their conclusions and insights are great breakthroughs, new vision, etc.
Actually, when they try to record these new ideas, and try to develop it further later, they find that the ideas are just shallow and based on some mistakes.
Total bull. This story reads like pure drug war propaganda. Go promote your fear and hate somewhere else. if this is even a real story, which it most likely isn't, then I'm sure your "friend" had a mental illness. You're harming everyone by blaming LSD and drugs on this guys death. While your at it you should put the blame on the apartment building for being too high.
Good comment. But I think in this case the drugs had destabilizing effect on his mind and contributed significantly to the result. At that time he become strange and difficult to communicate.
I am a big believer in scientific approach and statistics. Note though, that studies are often performed incorrectly. For example in your link they describe "reduced likelihood of past-year suicidal thinking" and "reduced likelihood of past-year suicidal planning". But the indicator to observe before making such conclusion is real "successful" suicide cases. We need to compare a drug-using group and non-using group, and compare the number of completed suicides in groups.
For me, it would take more studies, rigid, reviewed and confirmed by other scientists, before shading doubts on psychedelics danger.
I first heard a variant of this story about 30 years ago, either a lot of kids killed themselves jumping out of windows on acid or it's an urban legend.
>He also bought Hofmann's book with all the formulas and started cooking himself.
Making drugs is extremely hard, even for people who know lots of chemistry. It also exposes you to a lot of nasty volatile chemicals that, believe me, are waaaaay worse for your brain than any psychedelic. For example, chloroform is a standard solvent used in the synthesis of LSD. In a proper research laboratory, the risks are minimized; in your garage, they aren't: bromomethane doesn't care if you're a genius.
I have the unusual luck to have known several drug chemists. They're not an ordinary bunch of people, not by a long shot. Whether working with things like chlorine on improvised equipment is partially responsible for this pattern I'm not sure, but I think it suffices to say that your friend's case is at the zenith of psycho-chemical recklessness. (Also, the book[s] -- PiHKAL/TiHKAL -- are by Alexander Shulgin)
That isn't a pattern that carries over to typical LSD users -- consider e.g.:
Of course, one possibility is that all of these drugs cause schizophrenia; the other, that schizophrenia causes people to enjoy certain kinds of stimulation.
How many millions of people who never tried any drugs commited suicide?
How many people commited suicide after drinking a glass of milk, smoking a cigarette, or drinking a beer?
No doubt equally tragic stories could be told of many of them, but does it follow that milk, cigarettes, beer, or lack of drug use made them kill themselves?
Although that is a sad story, the story itself shows he was cognizant of what he was doing. I think very few people would argue LSD or any drug at all (caffeine included) are harmless in the strictest sense of the word.
But perhaps the potential benefits vs the realistic risks are a good enough investment for some people to make.
Hallucinogens are deeply intertwined with human culture; "promoting drugs" is such a silly idea. It's like "promoting eating".. people are going to do it, period.
Being cognizant of the risks, and honest about the benefits is the only way to truly reduce the harm of drugs in general.
Fear mongering, blanket statements, anti-drug cultural, none of that will ever quench what appears to be an innate human thirst for mind-altering substances.
To accept this as true (which any cursory look at history will show to be the case), is the only way to ever move forward with drug use/abuse.
You mentioned that this person was a classmate of yours. Did you know him personally? Is there an article or some kind or obituary that you can link to?
I hate to play devil's advocate, but this story has been told time and time again in different settings. sometimes it's a girl, sometimes its a college student, etc. but it always ends up with the person jumping out of a window/rooftop because they've convinced themselves that they can fly. I'm not saying that this particular story isn't true, but it's become the classic anti-LSD urban myth.
If true, this story is heartbreaking, sorry for your loss. It may be insensitive to suggest this, but there may have been several other factors that contributed to this tragedy, not only LSD. Vilifying the chemical substance isn't the answer here, the same way cars aren't to blame for crashes. Sure, you may not want to take LSD based on your friends experience, but there are several other people in the world who have had positive experiences who will need better convincing.
Wow this is awful. Doing any drug by oneself is a bad idea. Something like LSD is a terrible idea. While it might be OK, you need people around you and the right conditions - since it makes you think a bit differently. I doubt any one that was with other people who knew what they were doing would end up like this.
Over 10,000 people died in drink driving incidents in the US along last year. Distraction from mobile phones also led to thousands of accidents, should they be illegal too?
His point (I assume) isn't that these things aren't or shouldn't be illegal while driving, it's that you can make it illegal to drive under the influence without banning being under the influence.
Now, this is a statement of fact, which is always nice but I don't see what is the point being made here.
Is it that LSD is a concern for public safety? If so this incident puts it in the same category as drunk driving, texting while driving, and being so horny that you can't look at the road while looking at the woman in the red dress.
This article is two days old and I don't think ME would have published his report yet. So it is not even clear that the driver was conscious.
Yes, don't operate heavey machinery when using any mind altering substance is good default rule. Unless you are a fighter pilot and you've got your Uncle Sam issued speed.
"Sunday’s bizarre drunk-driving that claimed nine lives near the Gambir train station should serve as a terrible reminder for the authorities and public about the dangers of driving under influence."[0]
I don't think single person advocates operating heavy machinery while under the influence of any mind altering drug, legal or not. LSD can be safe to use while at the same time unsafe to drive on, just like alcohol or cannabis.
First, you need to have an experienced sitter with you. You're in for the full 8-10 hours, and on the off chance you start having a bad trip (things getting really dark and scary), you need someone to ground you to reality (and change the music or location, which can often instantly snap you out of a mood).
Second, if you're generally comfortable with your own thoughts and have a positive outlook you're much less likely to have a bad trip. This is why I think it's better to do it when you're older and more mature, rather than in your late teens/early twenties. I think you have more of an ability to process what's going on. Many people have the thought at some point during the trip, "What if I get stuck like this?" which can probably lead to a slight panic if you're not good at thinking about your own thoughts and realizing the feeling for what it is.
Third, go out into nature if you can. Preferably with just your friends and not a lot of people around. It's pretty cool.
Finally, the day after you'll feel somewhat drained and probably just want to stay inside and read. The day after, you're totally fine. I think the real long-term effects are kind of just a "tweaking of the dials". I don't feel like it was some super transformative experience, but it was really interesting in a way that's hard to describe, and you learn a lot about your own mind and how it works. I also feel like it kind of cleaned the windows on the way I see the world, in that I feel more positive and open to ideas, and in some ways I feel like I might be more creative now. It might sound hard to believe, but I understand now why they're researching using hallucinogens to treat depression, PTSD, etc.
Anyway, I'm not encouraging anyone to do it, but I will say that emotionally mature people should not be afraid to do it. Also, I never got any kind of signs that it was addictive. I pretty much just did it once, did it a few months later, and that was it for me.