Talk:LSD

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 s/ 8

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Word Choice Problems

As I began reading through the article, I noticed that some of the word choices are questionable. I feel words & phrases like "trip" and "cause mystical experiences" are unprofessional and therefore do not belong as per WP:TONE. As a very new editor, I would appreciate assistance in maintaining professional language throughout the article. --Destructaconn (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

As of the time signed at the end of this paragraph, I have replaced both above quoted examples of informal language, and replaced them with something more fitting. In addition, I have fixed an unrelated grammatical error. However, I am now noticing something else. Some choice words in the article appear somewhat positively biased towards LSD and its effects as a whole; while the phrase "In contrast to schizophrenia, LSD induces transcendental experiences with lasting psychological benefit." is accurate based on the sources it cites, it uses language that implies such experiences are always and can only be positive, which I feel is misleading and very possibly biased. Combing through the article and replacing phrases like these with more neutral language would help in bringing this article to a WP:NPOV. --Destructaconn (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Destructaconn: Psychedelic experience#Mystical experiences is not an "unprofessional" or "informal" term. If you read that article, the term was coined by a professional researcher, so I do not agree with you there. "Trip" is a colloquial term, but please keep in mind Wikipedia is aimed at the layperson, not a professional audience, it's a free encyclopedia, not a scientific journal.

it uses language that implies such experiences are always and can only be positive, which I feel is misleading and very possibly biased That may just be your interpretation, since the lede notes that

Adverse psychological reactions are possible, such as anxiety, paranoia, and delusions.[7] LSD is active in small amounts relative to other psychoactive compounds with doses measured in micrograms.[20] It is possible for LSD to induce either intermittent or chronic visual hallucinations, in spite of no further use. Common effects include visual snow and palinopsia. In cases where this causes distress or impairment it is diagnosed as hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD)

That does not sound positive in my ears. Kleuske (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll concede the point on mystical experiences, I didn't notice the source used that language specifically. Regarding the positive word choice, I was not claiming that the article itself was positive or negative towards LSD, simply that a few words I found felt out of place in their tone/POV. The article as a whole is very neutral as it should be, touching on negatives and positives. I simply feel "transcendental experiences with lasting psychological benefit" could be worded better to keep a neutral tone. As for "trip" being a recognizable colloquialism, rewording it to "experience" as I did does not greatly diminish its understandability to an average viewer. They are both easily recognizable and understandable words capable of being used in this situation, and one of them is more formal. This seems like an obvious situation where such a colloquialism is unnecessary. Better yet, some of the syntax in that area could be reworked so that something such as "Psychedelic experiences (colloquially known as 'trips') with LSD on average last for 8-12 hours, sometimes up to 20 hours." would work. That would include both words, and set up use of the more formal word further on in the article. --Destructaconn (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources actually mention mystical experiences,

Mystical experiences were assessed 24 h after drug administration using the States of Consciousness Questionnaire [25, 26] that includes the 43-item Mystical Effects Questionnaire (MEQ43) [25], 30-item Mystical Effects Questionnaire (MEQ30)
[...]
Alterations of mind and mystical-type effects are shown in Figs. 2, S2, respectively.
— https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8027607/

Acute mystical-type experiences that are acutely induced by hallucinogens are thought to contribute to their potential therapeutic effects. However, no data have been reported on LSD-induced mystical experiences [...] On the MEQ, 200 μg LSD induced mystical experiences that were comparable to those in patients who underwent LSD-assisted psychotherapy [...]
— https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5420386/

"Mystical experience" is also used in scholarly contexts, see Scholarly_approaches_to_mysticism#Mystical_experience.

As for "trip", I think "experience" fits better than "trip" for WP:TONE. --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

some of the syntax in that area could be reworked so that something such as "Psychedelic experiences (colloquially known as 'trips') with LSD on average last for 8-12 hours, sometimes up to 20 hours." would work - agree. For instance, Mental disorders under LSD#Psychological_effects states, LSD may trigger panic attacks or feelings of extreme anxiety, known colloquially as a "bad trip". --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

For what its worth, I used similar wording for N,N-Dimethyltryptamine#Mental_disorders sometime ago, DMT may trigger adverse psychological reactions, known colloquially as a "bad trip", such as intense fear, paranoia, anxiety, panic attacks, and substance-induced psychosis, particularly in predisposed individuals --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as an old acid head who first took LSD (very pure Owsley White Lighning) when he was 15, I personally consider LSD a "transcendental" drug, but this is an encyclopedia article after all. I've edited the text to align with the cited sources, changing "LSD induces transcendental experiences" to "LSD can induce mental states that transcend the experience of everyday consciousness". As I wrote in my edit summary, Nichol's and Barker's paper refers to "transcendent", not "transcendental", a different concept altogether, which suggests Emersonian Transcendentalism, while only three of the four instances of "transcend" in Lee and Shlain's book "Acid Dreams" actually refer to the drug. Also, given that we shouldn't use technical jargon except where unavoidable, as in scientific articles, I don't believe we should write down to the reader, or dumb down an article's content to accommodate the uneducated reader who can't read beyond an eighth-grade level, either. We have Simple Wikipedia for that. Carlstak (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Carlstak: The previous wording was correct. "Transcendental experience" in this context does not refer to transcendentalism, it refers to its more fringe use in some forms of psychology, such as transpersonal psychology. Although I’m not certain, I believe R. D. Laing first popularized this idea in his 1964 lecture on the subject, which was published in 1965. These ideas were later embraced by Roland Griffiths and Bill Richards and are well supported in the therapeutic psychedelic literature, but probably nowhere else. Wikipedia doesn’t really have an article on the subject at the moment, and most discussion takes place in secondary articles. The article on psychedelic therapy should probably mention it, as it is a major topic of discussion in that context, but not unique to that topic. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I take your point. However, of the given sources, Nichol's and Barker's paper doesn't use the word "transcendental", while Martin A. Lee's and Bruce Shlain's book, Acid Dreams, does use the word "transcendental" fifteen times according to a Google search of the book text, but neither Lee nor Shlain have advanced degrees in fields germane to the study of LSD itself. Lee has only an undergraduate degree in philosophy, and Shlain is a professional writer whose other books include Baseball Inside Out: Winning the Games Within the Games and Oddballs: Baseball's Greatest Pranksters, Flakes, Hot Dogs, and Hotheads. Acid Dreams is not a top quality source, and we would need a better one. Carlstak (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Carlstak: Nichol's & Barker discuss the 5 Dimensions of Altered States of Consciousness (5D-ASC) scale, which like the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), specifically measures transcendental experiences. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I missed that. So the paper serves as a relevant reliable source, but I still think the previous wording (before I changed it) in our article, "transcendental experiences", is too vague The average reader isn't going to be aware of those nuances, nor will they bother to check the sources (according to WP's own data, as I understand it). Can you come up with an alternative phrasing that's more precise, yet still clear enough for that reader to grasp that it's not New Age bullshit? :-) I'm sure I could do it, but I had a particularly strenuous bike ride today, and I'm fading fast. By the way, you don't need to ping me; I'm following this page, and I'll check in tomorrow. Carlstak (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s an interesting question, and it’s something I’ve been thinking about. If you’ve read Pollan (2018), then you know he’s touched on the history of this idea so there’s a lot there. The description involves a qualitative assessment of a so-called mystical experience (or ASC). This includes the loss of the sense of time, the experience of amazement, the inability to explain in words, insightful knowledge experienced intuitively, the experience of eternity or infinity, the fusion of the personal self into a larger whole, an encounter with ultimate reality, the experience of the profound, sacred, and holy, and the experience of unity or wholeness. These examples are all from the sister test of the 5D-ASC, the MEQ. This is what is meant by the transcendental experience, or "things that lie beyond the practical experience of ordinary people, and cannot be discovered or understood by ordinary reasoning". It’s probably not an ideal description in a more modern, data driven world, as it touches upon what has been previously referred to as mysticism, spirituality, or religion. But as far as I know, it’s the only language available to describe it. It’s a bit of a conundrum. In Zen, they say you have to go where language can’t, and this seems to be the problem at hand. This also probably explains why art and imagery are able to describe and communicate the experience better than words. Which makes it even more difficult when we try and write about something that can’t be described or contained by language alone. Which is why as bad as it is, we are left with the term "transcendental experience", because it’s the best we can do. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It came to me in a flash, just like tripping on that good old Owsley acid (I'll never get to sleep). I've made what I hope is a Solomonic edit to the article, changing the text to "LSD can induce transcendental experiences, or mental states that transcend the experience of everyday consciousness, with lasting psychological benefit." I emailed Owsley before he got killed in that car crash to tell him how much I enjoyed his creations, and he actually responded with some positive vibes.;-) Carlstak (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like we do have an article on this type of transcendent experience. It’s found at transcendence (philosophy) and is attributed to Abraham Maslow. It apparently has some overlap with transcendence (religion). The topic was addressed by Maslow from 1968 to 1970 in print, with a larger collection of his work published after his death here. I think this is the body of work that later researchers are referring to in their usage of the term regarding psychedelics. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, enlightening. Thank you very much, I feel smarter already. This has been a stimulating discussion, and it seems to have inspired some extraordinarily vivid dreams last night with an unusual textural 3-D quality, laden with symbolic meaning I'm sure. I wish Owsley were still around to interpret them for me.;-) Carlstak (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Following this discussion, I've changed "transcendental" to "transcendent" in the article per cited Nichol and Barker paper: "...high doses have a greater propensity to transport the user to an alternate reality, where they lose contact with their everyday environment. These occasions are often described as "peak experiences", "transcendent", or "mystical" and are profoundly altered states of consciousness." Also linked the word "transcendent" to the Contemporary philosophy section of the "Transcendence (philosophy)" WP article. Carlstak (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Just as an aside concerning the term "transcendent", since we've been discussing it, Owsley was a genius who, besides making very pure LSD, designed the Grateful Dead's Wall of Sound system with the aim of amplifying the transcendent experience of tripping on acid. I heard it under those conditions, and he unquestionably succeeded. Carlstak (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Preference for old molecular structure and name

Hello,

I just wanted to voice my opinion on the new changes to the molecular structure orientation (previously it was "upright") and name (previous Lysergic acid diethylamide) in case other editors felt the same.

The prior molecular structure placed more emphasis on the recognizable tryptamine backbone present in LSD. The current structure obscures this by rotation and does not emphasis another motif in turn (like the phenylethylamine structure). I understand that it takes up less space in the article, but because it is part of a longer text space, this change barely influences formatting within the first 2 sections.

As for the name, this was probably done in accordance with a Wikipedia standard, so I imagine it is less prone to suggestion. However, plenty of compounds are titled by their non-abbreviated name to emphasize their broader classifications. For example, DMT (although the inclusion of N,N is a bit much). I believe that the full name suits the Wikipedia register better than an abbreviation, which could instead easily be a redirect to keep the article findable by users. Oro Temp (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

"The NIH states that LSD is addictive"

As far as I can tell, neither the live [1] or archived [2] page referenced actually says that LSD is addictive. What it says is this:

There are no FDA-approved medications to treat addiction to LSD or other hallucinogens. [...] More research is needed to find out if behavioral therapies can be used to treat addiction to hallucinogens.

This might sound as though it implies that LSD is addictive, but looking at the rest of the entries on the same page I'd suggest that it's just effectively placeholder text. (Besides, we can't cite an implication.) It certainly does not actually say that LSD is addictive. The introduction to the page says this:

Information on commonly used drugs with the potential for misuse or addiction can be found here.

LSD can certainly be misused, so its inclusion on the page does not constitute a statement that it is addictive. The NIH do in fact have a page [3] on which they address the question of whether psychs are addictive:

Limited research suggests that use of psychedelic drugs, such as psilocybin and LSD, does not typically lead to addiction. Researchers think that one reason may be because people commonly experience unpleasant side effects when taking these substances, including headaches and nausea, which reduces their desire to take them again.

It sounds like they're trying very hard to avoid saying that LSD is not addictive, but per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE "each statement in the article [should be] verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly" and the NIH do not appear to explicitly state that LSD is addictive.

I've added failed verification for now, but if nobody has any objections I will remove the claim because it seems to be untrue. I would just remove it straight away, but currently that section has a structure of "these people say it is addictive, but look at all these other people who say otherwise" and that would have to change (and I'm not doing that right now). Pink Bee (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No objections. The literature shows that psychedelics are in general, non-habit forming, and have been used for a century or more to treat addictions, albeit in less than scientific ways, and due to unknown mechanisms. This is how Alcoholics Anonymous started (Bill W. famously used LSD to get clean), and more recently, this is how psychedelics like Ibogaine have been used by opiate addicts to treat themselves. I also believe that psilocybin has been studied for its effects on nicotine addiction as well. Anecdotally, many people have quit tobacco smoking with the help of psychedelics. With all of that said, there is a psychological component of addiction in the psychonaut community, particularly of the kind found on social media, which seems to illustrate the "chasing the dragon" problem, where a very small number of people are "addicted" to taking psychedelics over and over again, often in non-constructive and less than therapeutic ways. This doesn’t mean or imply that psychedelics are addictive. Just because someone eats a dozen donuts a day doesn’t mean they are necessarily addictive either. Any substance is going to attract people who abuse it. Finally, the idea that psychedelics are inherently addictive is treated by the larger psychonaut community as absurd. This is because, microdoses aside, the average to above average dose (referred to as "heroic" in that subculture) tends to evoke a feeling of high strangeness and astonishment at best, and primal fear at worst (the cause of which is subject to great debate). Consequently, these unusual reactions lead to a high number of adventurers never trying it again. This is why the very idea of psychedelics being addictive is so wrong and misguided. Perhaps the best analogy here is the type of person who is attracted to roller coasters. Without looking too closely at the data, it appears that the enjoyment of such things is highly correlated with age. Younger people love roller coasters, a preference that quickly drops from 70% to 25% as one ages. Similarly, I would argue, that repeatedly taking psychedelics over and over again in a way that resembles addiction would follow the same pattern in terms of age. We don’t think roller coasters are addictive, but we do acknowledge that younger people enjoy them far more than older people. Lastly, there appears to be a genetic component associated with "thrill seeking", which could impact 20-30% of the population. I’m not familiar with this side of things, so I’ll just note it in passing. Perhaps what we think is a sign of addiction is in reality a function of age-related thrill seeking unique to a subset of people. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bon courage. I just made the edit discussed above, but you reverted it. If the issue is specifically the footnote about the baboon study, would it be OK for the rest to remain?

Also, I had a look at WP:MEDRS and am I correct in thinking that the issue is that the information about that study came from a primary source? I was not going to include it originally, but I felt it would be wrong to keep the claim that "There are no recorded successful attempts to train animals to self-administer LSD in laboratory settings" when that is no longer the case, and especially when the study was mentioned here (which I think is fine by MEDRS – please correct me if it isn't).

Thanks. Pink Bee (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at that NIH page again, I've just seen the conflict of interest statement. "Drug Science receives an unrestricted educational grant from a consortium of medical psychedelics companies"... I should have looked more carefully before, because it does not sound like that's suitable.

In any case, can the rest not stay? Pink Bee (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think any edit which stuck to verifiable statements sourced to WP:MEDRS sources would be fine. Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Chromosome damage myth

Archive footage of concerned researchers talking about it:

The Mindbenders: Scary Drug Education Films from the 60's, volumes 1 and 2

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0230530/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299036/

Downloads, thanks to Something Weird Video: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1OSwyAgN0cy1JSMFD8itZ51CjcFQPgIEB?usp=drive_link

“Based on extensive human experience, it is generally acknowledged that psychedelics do not elicit addiction or compulsive use and that there is little evidence for an association between psychedelic use and birth defects, chromosome damage, lasting mental illness, or toxic effects to the brain or other body organs,” (Teri Krebs quoted in Rothkopf 2015)

EmmaSofia and the case for psychedelic legalization. Joanna Rothkopf, 4/3/15, salon

Research concluding that LSD produced chromosome damage and birth defects appeared in prominent scientific and medical journals and was repeated often in the popular press. While these findings were soon discredited, the additional negative contribution to LSD’s reputation had been accomplished and there was no going back (Dishotsky, Loughman, Mogar, & Lipscomb, 1971; Presti & Beck, 2001).

Dishotsky, N. I., Loughman, W. D., Mogar, R. E., & Lipscomb, W. R. (1971). LSD and genetic damage. Science, 172, 431–440.

Presti, D. E., & Beck, J. E. (2001). Strychnine and other enduring myths: Expert and user folklore surrounding LSD. In T. B. Roberts (Ed.), Psychoactive sacramentals: Essays on entheogens and religion (pp. 125–137). San Francisco: Council on Spiritual Practices

Handbook of Medical Hallucinogens (Grob & Grigsby, 2021). New York, NY: Guilford Press. ISBN 9781462551897. Chapter 8: LSD (Kristine Panik & David E. Presti), pg. 169, first column
https://mcb.berkeley.edu/labs2/presti/sites/mcb.berkeley.edu.labs2.presti/files/u3/2021%20LSD%20Chapter%20Panik%20Presti.pdf

When in 1967 a scientifically-flimsy report alleged that ʟsᴅ caused chromosome damage in human lymphocytes or white blood cells (Cohen et al. 1967), the National Institutes of Health seized the opportunity to mount a vigorous propaganda campaign, as outlined in the first chapter (Weil 1972). Significantly, this federally-endowed research organization ordered no tests to verify the preliminary report, which was taken at face value since it was welcome news to the government. The then-docile information media fell hook, line and sinker for the great chromosome-damage scare, and ʟsᴅ became the new scapegoat (Braden 1970). The media and the government played on fears generated in the public mind by the Thalidomide tragedy of the late fifties and early sixties, still a vivid and gruesome memory to ʟsᴅ users and non-users alike (see Chapter 1).

No scientific report, however, had ever demonstrated that ʟsᴅ was, like Thalidomide, a teratogen (a substance causing birth defects). When controlled studies were conducted with ʟsᴅ and chromosomes, and when long-time ʟsᴅ users were examined, it was found that there was no significant link between ʟsᴅ use and chromosome damage (Bender & Sankar 1968; Dishotsky et al. 1971; Tjio et al. 1969). It was also found that viral infections as well as many drugs, including caffeine and aspirin, could cause chromosome breaks in lymphocytes in vitro. Although ʟsᴅ use declined initially in the face of the big scare, the end result was the irreparable loss of the United States government's credibility vis á vis drugs (Weil 1972). The government attempted to foist a few other spurious scares on the public: the “flashback” scare, the ʟsᴅ-produces-psychosis scare, ad nauseam. Given the U.S. government’s lack of credibility on drug-related issues, it is not surprising that these scare tactics had only minimal, if any, efficacy at deterring the extra-medical use of ʟsᴅ.

Pharmacotheon: Entheogenic Drugs, Their Plant Sources and History. Jonathan Ott, 1993, 1996. Chapter II: ʟsᴅ, Ololiuhqui, Kykeon: The Ergoline Complex / Section: LSD AND MORNING GLORY SEEDS AS LUDIBLE DRUGS (pages 136–137)

In the late fifties, a new tranquilizer known as Thalidomide was admitted for medical use in Germany and other countries. It becamse apparent that the drug was strongly teratogenic, that is, that it produced grave birth defects if taken at the wrong time by pregnant women. The tragic result was a generation of “Thalidomide babies” with hideous and crippling deformities. The drug was immediately taken off the market, and regulations concerning the introduction of new drugs were tightened considerably in many countries.

At this time, under the trade name Delysid, ʟsᴅ-25 was being distributed as an experimental drug by Sandoz ʟᴛᴅ. of Switzerland (see Chapter 2). Since the drug was thought to produce a “model psychosis,” Sandoz felt it might ultimately be an effective psychotherapeutic agent, and indeed it showed considerable promise in early trials. When in 1967 a report in the New England Journal of Medicine alleged that ʟsᴅ caused chromosome damage (Cohen et al. 1967), the scare was on. No matter that the report did not support this allegation, which in later controlled experiments proved to be false (Dishotsky et al. 1971; Tjio et al. 1969), nor show that ʟsᴅ is teratogenic (it is not). The media and governments seized this allegation as a means of attacking ʟsᴅ use, which was spreading rapidly. The media mounted a vigorous scare campaign against ʟsᴅ, which continues to this day.

ʟsᴅ users in the sixties were principally in their late teens or early twenties, and many had vivid memories of the well-publicized Thalidomide tragedy, which had been graphically and luridly chronicled by the press. Many people came to fear ʟsᴅ as a result of the scare campaign. Popular interest in ʟsᴅ had stimulated interest in other entheogenic drugs. One result was the reprinting of Huxley’s and Klüver’s hitherto obscure books on mescaline, and an increasing awareness that ʟsᴅ was not the only entheogenic drug.

Pharmacotheon: Entheogenic Drugs, Their Plant Sources and History. Jonathan Ott, 1993, 1996. Chapter 1: Mescaline, Péyotl, San Pedro, Phenethylamines / Section: NON-INDIAN USE OF PÉYOTL AND MESCALINE (pg. 97)

References:

Cohen, M.M. et al. 1967. “In vivo and in vitro chromosomal damage induced by LSD-25” New England Journal of Medicine 227: 1043.

Weil, A.T. 1972. The Natural Mind—A New Way of Looking at Drugs and the Higher Consciousness. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, ᴍᴀ. Revised edition in 1986. The Natural Mind—An Investigation of Drugs and the Higher Consciousness. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, ᴍᴀ. German translation, 1974. Das Erweiterte Bewußtsein. Svattgart, Germany. Translated into Portuguese, 1975. Drogas e Estados Superiores da Consciência. Ground, São Paulo, Brasil.

Braden, W. 1970. “LSD and the press” In: Aaronson, B. and H. Osmond (Eds.) Psychedelics: The Uses and Implications of Hallucinogenic Drugs. Doubleday/Anchor, Garden City, ɴᴊ. pp. 400-418.

Bender, L. and DVS. Sankar 1968. “Chromosome damage not found in leukocytes of children treated with ʟsᴅ-25” Science 159. Letter to the editor, 10 January issue.

Dishotsky, N.I. et al. 1971. “ʟsᴅ and genetic damage” Science 172: 431.

Tjio, J.H. et al. 1969. “ʟsᴅ and chromosomes: A controlled experiment” Journal of the American Medical Association 210: 849.

“The classical serotonergic psychedelics LSD, psilocybin, mescaline are not known to cause brain damage and are regarded as non-addictive.”

Psychedelics and Mental Health: A Population Study. Teri S. Krebs, Pål-Ørjan Johansen. PLoS ONE 8(8): e63972. Aug 19, 2013. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063972 (Abstract)

“Illegal status means that standard human safety studies can’t be done,” [David] Nutt says. “But we have lots of real world data (like millions of users) with no long term harms apparent.” Albert Hofman, the Swiss scientist who first synthesized LSD in 1938, used the drug regularly, Nutt notes. “Hofman lived till over 100 years as did other pioneers. What more would they like as proof?”

LSD’s Health Benefits Convince Norway to Relax Punishment For Possession. Zachary Siegel, 10/10/17, Vice

“LSD and related substances are not drugs in the usual sense, but are part of the sacred substances, which have been used for thousands of years in ritual settings. The classic psychedelics like LSD, psilocybin and mescaline are characterized by the fact that they are neither toxic nor addictive. It is my great concern to separate psychedelics from the ongoing debates about drugs, and to highlight the tremendous potential inherent to these substances for self-awareness, as an adjunct in therapy, and for fundamental research into the human mind.” (Albert Hofmann)

From a speech given on Hofmann's 100th or 102nd birthday, included in the fourth edition of Stanislav Grof's LSD Psychotherapy.

“There is no evidence that LSD causes permanent brain damage — and quite a lot of evidence that it doesn't.”

“We are lucky that we have over 1,000 papers written in the '50s and '60s when LSD was given to thousands and thousands of research subjects so we have a pretty good idea at this point what it does and does not do.” - Dr. Andrew Sewell

LSD: The Geek's Wonder Drug? Jan 16, 2006. Wired Wk472 (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)