
Could LSD be the right prescription for the terminally ill? - adam
https://www.thedailybeast.com/could-lsd-be-the-right-prescription-for-the-terminally-ill
======
plantel
I've been microdosing and taking full trips upwards of 300ug over the last
year and turned my life around. I've been able to conquer my inner demons ,
learn to love development again and break ground on personal motivation and
roadblocks and problem solving.

I was prescribed vyvanse and tried modafinil for a while and found they harmed
more than helped in the long run , based all around getting me to enjoy
mundane tasks rather than chase the excitement of challenges that acid gives
me

~~~
lighttower
How do you know that the acid is pure? How do mitigate the worry about
impurities like the now rampant fentanyl introduced into other illicit drugs?
Not saying that fentanyl is likely to be mixed with lsd just citing an example

~~~
piracy1
TL;DR: Buy an Erlich Reagent test kit, they're $20 or so and could save your
life. [https://dancesafe.org/product/ehrlichs-reagent-testing-
kit/](https://dancesafe.org/product/ehrlichs-reagent-testing-kit/)

Long Version: So typically it's not really "mixing" or "cutting" with LSD.
What is most common with LSD is laying 25I-NBOME on a sheet and selling it as
LSD. The same is done with DOX and innumerable other research chemicals. These
are both relatively untested research chemicals that produce similar effects
but have more potential side effects. They use these because you can (kinda)
trick someone into thinking they're taking LSD because it is a trippy
experience and you're unlikely to think it was not LSD. The issue with these
drugs is that they kill people so one ought test their "LSD".

LSD along with DMT and mushrooms is an indole alkaloid which means (roughly)
they have a shape that can fit into a serotonin receptor nicely which is what
gives you the effect of tripping. So, if we can test for them we can tell if
it's really LSD or some shitty analog.

BUT HOW?

Thankfully there exists a test for just this. It's called an Ehrlich reagent
test and you can buy one for about $15.
[https://dancesafe.org/product/ehrlichs-reagent-testing-
kit/](https://dancesafe.org/product/ehrlichs-reagent-testing-kit/)

To learn more go here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g0KThAbkjU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g0KThAbkjU)

Edit: Additionally, buying online helps reduce your chances of getting some
shitty research chemical because: 1\. A vendor typically shoots for having
repeat customers. 2\. If you get LSD that is not LSD, you can leave a bad
review saying so. But still get a test kit.

~~~
drez
How does one go about finding a reputable (and legitimate) online seller?

~~~
davmar
pls respond. also interested.

~~~
piracy1
So, this is only to explain how to do so in the safest way. This is not to
encourage people to do drugs, buying drugs is illegal. First, find a market.
There are many lists of markets with reviews. I think the news site deepdotweb
(dot) com maintains a good list. Then find a quality vendor. Most markets will
keep track of a vendors number of sales and their reviews. The reviews should
be 95%+ positive and you should read the bad reviews. In the case of LSD I'd
suggest finding a vendor that sells just LSD. These are typically people who
are really into LSD not just drug dealers and your interactions with them will
tend to be better because they're often (not always) ideologically motivated
rather than financially motivated, as such they often have better prices and
service. Your prices should fall between $2/tab and $4.5/tab depending on how
much you buy.

Warning: Do lookup how illegal possessing LSD is in your area. Often times the
laws are somewhat insane (25 years for 1 gram of material including the weight
of the tab). While it is very unlikely that anything would happen to you while
buying online (it's kinda hard for the post office to detect 100 micrograms
embedded in a piece of paper in a paper envelope) and LSD is perhaps one of
the safest drugs to buy online. Make yourself aware of the associated risks
before doing anything.

------
Nursie
The idea that drugs and drug experiences are _so_ bad that they should be
denied to all, and even the dieing should only be bludgeoned out of their pain
with opiates, is one I find fairly disgusting.

There is a cornucopia of mental states to be experienced. If LSD and/or
psilocybin offer lasting relief from the terror and darkness of imminent
death, they should be embraced openly. As should any and all other drugs that
may ease someone's passing.

------
Overtonwindow
I think using hallucinogens and other drugs is absolutely what we should be
giving to those who are terminally ill. Doping them all up so they just sit
around drooling is inhumane. This may sound way out of the bounds of normalcy,
but I think cannabis should be provided to everyone in a nursing home. Dying,
and waiting to die, for all things considered, seem like a very painful,
depressing, stressful process. Anything that can be done to let terminally ill
patients float off into the afterlife in peace and without pain is a good
thing, and anything we can do to improve end of life care we should consider.

~~~
maxxxxx
Having watched somebody die miserably over weeks in a hospital hooked up to
machines and being treated like an object I think being drugged up is vastly
preferable. There was almost no warmth or comfort in the process.

I remember watching a Canadian movie about a father dieing from cancer and the
children buying him heroine. In the end they all got together and he overdosed
and died in peace. Seems like a good way to go out out.

Obviously I don't know how I would really respond in that situation.

~~~
figurehe4d
That's basically what hospice care is. Give patients opiates until their heart
stops.

------
Sir_Cmpwn
It's worth noting that there is a risk here. LSD can put you in a mental state
prime for significant changes to your psyche - in either direction. It's
vitally important that the right scenario be crafted or the trip could spiral
into a tramautic experience, especially if they have a terminal illness to
dwell on during the trip. LSD is an amazing drug with potential to help
people, but let's not forget that it can be dangerous and administer it
carefully.

~~~
cryoshon
I mean if you're already planning on giving a terminally ill person LSD, why
not slip them some MDMA, benzodiazepines, and opiates, too?

~~~
pault
You're getting downvoted but when I do psychedelics I take a small dose of
opiates to ensure it doesn't spiral into fear and paranoia. If the goal of
theraputic use of psychedelics is to create a deeply seated positive
experience, I don't see why mixing a little bit of warm fuzzies into it would
be determental.

~~~
figurehe4d
Opiates are highly addictive. Want a warm fuzzy experience? Mesc. Want a
theraputic experience? Mdma. Opiates are playing with fire though.

~~~
pault
I'm only using opiates as an example. In my experience no psychoactive drug
has the exact same effect on different people.

------
GeekyBear
There is existing clinical evidence that Psilocybin is helpful for treating
anxiety and depression in cancer patients.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/12/the-
life-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/12/the-life-
changing-magic-of-mushrooms/509246/)

~~~
trhway
and according to the government who keeps it on the Schedule I, there is
basically nothing bad about Psilocybin :

[https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs6/6038/#risks](https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs6/6038/#risks)

Compare the "risks" listed there with side effects of a typical OTC medicine,
not even mentioning any serious medical drug. One can only wonder why it is on
the Schedule I. Is there something bad about Psilocybin what government hides
from us? :)

~~~
GeekyBear
The annual Global Drug Survey has repeatedly found mushrooms containing
Psilocybin to be much, much safer than alcohol.

[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/23/study-
halluc...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/23/study-
hallucinogenic-mushrooms-safest-recreational-drug-lsd)

------
mindslight
Maybe rather than prescribing xor proscribing, the answer is to simply stop
stymieing individuals from figuring out what works for themselves.

------
cc81
I don't get why he compares opiates and LSD as LSD would not replace the
opiates here at all.

------
sova
Not to forget the wonderful contributions to the field by Joan Halifax and
Stanislav Grof!

~~~
yeahforsureman
Stanislav Grof, really? The crank psychoanalyst whose therapeutic ideas are
based on summoning and coming to terms with false memories of birth and
whatnot?

------
Dowwie
Imagine a world where a terminally ill patient has a dedicated medical
practitioner. Now imagine that practitioner is also a psychedelic shaman who
guides a patient through twelve hours of intense LSD-induced hallucinations.

Now imagine that you are the owner of this bridge I am selling, for a very
reasonable price.

------
benevol
The key is this: Substances such as LSD, psilocybin or DMT can put the brain
into a special mode of functioning which can in turn enable capacities which
can be described as "psychic" in certain circumstances (this is also linked to
the "mystical experience" which is often mentioned by users). These
experiences make people aware of the fact that there is a whole invisible
world (or spiritual dimension) which has nothing to do with our material
experience. This understanding leads to a much higher degree of freedom for
the person experiencing all of this. For obvious reasons, such a person can be
much less manipulated by negative emotions such as greed, hatred and fear. It
leads to less war and less consumerism. But both of these components make up
big parts of the US economy, which represents a small percentage of very
wealthy people who are afraid of losing their dominance. This is probably the
most important reason why these substances which have so much potential have
been suppressed for so long, without real and valid justification.

~~~
gboudrias
Right off the bat, I don't mean to be overly critical but greed is an attitude
not an emotion.

Also there's no such thing as a negative emotion. Everything we feel is a
necessary (or at least programmed) reaction to our experience.

Also emotions aren't things with sentience that can manipulate you. Either you
are at peace with them and rational in how you live them out, or you are not.

I hope I don't come accross as pedantic or condescending, I truly do think we
dramatize certain aspects of our psyches that would otherwise be healthier.

(I don't know anything about LSD but I still feel that you're romanticizing it
a bit.)

~~~
alanwatts
>Also there's no such thing as a negative emotion. Everything we feel is a
necessary (or at least programmed) reaction to our experience.

Have you ever met someone with emotional issues, i.e. anger management issues?
There are indeed many people with habitual "programmed" emotional responses
which are detrimental to their well being and are extremely difficult to
manage.

You might like to read the works of the evolutionary pyschologist and
athropologist Dr. Paul Eckman. He posits that emotions are valuable life
saving forces that help us act quickly in critical situations without having
to think. However, our emotional habits have also evolved over many thousands
of years, and so many of the emotional responses which may have saved our life
as a paleolithic hunter gatherers may no longer be relevant and can have the
opposite effect in a civilized society.

~~~
gboudrias
Nowadays I'm back in university, studying psychology (I just started).

As far as I know, the problem with anger management is not the anger itself,
it's how you deal with it so it doesn't overwhelm you, and so you can have
less of it. What I mean is that it's a symptom, not the issue itself. It's
normal to be angry when someone is a jerk to you, it's healthy even, and so
it's not* inherently "bad" (as we so often portray anger and sadness). The
problem is when you let it get away from you.

I hope I understand correctly that your last paragraph is agreeing with my
comment. If not, then I should have extended the notion of "necessary" to
"useful", in the sense that you are describing. However the problem with evo
psych is that it's largely non-falsifiable. The part you are describing is
somewhat an obligatory aspect of evolution, but evo psychologists and
anthropologists tend to draw conclusions that aren't rigorous (in my opinion).
This is coming from someone who has 30 credits in Anthropology from a few
years back :)

Generally there is no harm in theorizing, but I consider psychology and
psychotherapy to be too important to allow ourselves to consider untested
information. I do agree that other people may find Dr Eckman interesting... I
don't but others might ;)

~~~
alanwatts
>Generally there is no harm in theorizing, but I consider psychology and
psychotherapy to be too important to allow ourselves to consider untested
information.

Psychology and psychotherapy are almost _wholly theoretical_ , _subjective_ ,
_soft sciences_ , rather than objectively testable hard sciences like physics
and biology.

>psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective
judgments rather than objective biological tests".[1][2]

-Allen Frances

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances)

~~~
alanwatts
*Psychology and psychiatry I meant to say

