LSD Found to Reduce Anxiety in Terminally Ill Patients

[Narz]

Premature in that LSD-use mimics a rare, but natural process

Which is?

and risky in that a user may undergo a permanent change in personality, possibly developing psychosis.

The chances of that are very low AFAIK. It seems like something you hear about (something that happened to a friend of a friend).

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

It's now considered common knowledge in the pain community that morphine (et al) aren't addictive if they're used to actually manage physical pain.

I suppose that's a function of competitive binding mechanics?

 

[Rashiminos]

Which is?

The mind can go elsewhere, as in something similar to an OOBE.

The chances of that are very low AFAIK. It seems like something you hear about (something that happened to a friend of a friend).

Around half are "immune" by default. The others vary in value depending on when they decided to trip.

 

[Hygro]

Premature in that LSD-use mimics a rare, but natural process, and risky in that a user may undergo a permanent change in personality, possibly developing psychosis.

So you're just making things up.

 

[Rashiminos]

So you're just making things up.

No. I am not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8251869
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary

 

[Hygro]

No. I am not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8251869
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary

Studies during the height of the cultural drug war, i.e in the early 90s, starting off with "The continued endemic use of hallucinogenic drugs, and of LSD in particular..." give a pretty good lead in that the data is going to be presented to fit a forgone conclusion. In this case what I can get from the abstract is that the study is correlates LSD use to people who are likely to have issues. People on the margins are less mentally healthy and more likely to use drugs. It would make sense that those things would be non-causally concurrent.

As for the Tim Leary link, what am I supposed to glean?

What you're saying is that you don't think most people are capable of using LSD in a healthy way. All recent studies I've seen on hallucinogens state the opposite - that most users come away with a lasting positive experience. What I'm saying you're making up is how people are somehow "prematurely" exposing themselves to something they can't handle.

 

[Narz]

Nicely put Hygro. Potential of abuse doesn't mean necessity of abuse & studying druggies to show how drugs are bad is ridiculous. Prescription drugs can & will be abused too. You don't see people on LSD shooting up their schools but kids on SSRI's.

I'd still mostly straight-edge when it comes to drugs but psychedelics are an exception. There's a reason most traditional cultures on Earth use drug trips as part of their religion.

In the context of "getting f-ed up", yes, there is potential for harm or misuse & I'm inherently more skeptical of synthetics but from what I've read (on wiki for instance) most of those who experienced damage from these drugs had a history of mental illness or instability before use.

 

[Borachio]

Huxley had an interesting perspective. Contrast Island and Brave New World, for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(Huxley_novel)

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd not be surprised if it could cause lasting damage. Depends on when you take it, mostly. If the brain is still developing/maturing, then having weird chemicals in there would disrupt 'normal' growth signals and the wiring (or its insulation) would lie down aberrantly. Occasional low-intensity pulses shouldn't create such issues.
Now, that's biology. Psychologically, someone could get a really big effect with just one use. Up or down, really. That's just a question of odds.

 

[Borachio]

Can't LSD cause some DNA mutations?

But still may not.

As this review shows, no convincing experimental or clinical evidence exists to prove that the commonly used dosages of pure LSD produce genetic mutations, congenital malformations or malignant growths. As far as illicit LSD is concerned, the situation is much more complex, and the results of the studies of illicit LSD users should not be considered relevant to the question of the biological dangers of LSD. Uncertainties about the dosage, and the contamination of black-market samples of psychedelic drugs by various impurities and additives contribute a very important dimension to the already serious psychological hazards associated with unsupervised self-experimentation.
There is absolutely no indication in the research data currently available that responsible experimental and therapeutic use of LSD by experienced professionals should be discontinued.

Although it wouldn't be an issue for the terminally ill, anyway.

 

[El_Machinae]

From a science perspective, expressions like "there is no evidence to suggest that X affects Y" are frustrating.

It's very easy to have no evidence, just don't look.

To scientifically "prove" that X doesn't affect Y is actually a lot of work. It's much harder to show no effect than to actually show an effect.

 

[Borachio]

That's true.

But if the subject you're studying is whether there is good evidence to support, say, the hypothesis that LSD causes cancer, and you look at all the various studies that have been carried out, it might be a reasonable conclusion that there is no evidence currently available to support such a hypothesis.