Slashdot Mirror


First LSD Test In 40 Years Reveal Drug Helps Terminal Patients Prepare For Death

EwanPalmer writes "The first controlled LSD study in more than 40 years reveals the drug could be used to help people with terminal illnesses deal better with death. The study, published in the Journal of nervous and Mental Disease, showed that 12 people who agreed to take the banned hallucinogenic drug during therapy sessions felt 'significant reductions in anxiety' about their lives ending."

221 comments

  1. Is this that surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are definitely people who should NOT take psychedelic drugs but at this point any level headed person should be able to see what LSD is.

    1. Re:Is this that surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are definitely people who should NOT take psychedelic drugs but at this point any level headed person should be able to see what LSD is.

      There are also people who definitely should not drink alcohol, but at this point any level headed person should be able to see that the sky is blue.

      Or put another way, wtf does the first part of your post have to do with the second?

  2. No shit captian obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This has been a long known fact, shortly after the study, or experiments were done this was being discussed among the medical community, and among the Public. I guess the newer generation will rediscover these studies but this isn't anything remotely "new" or ground breaking!

  3. uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, yeah, they're high. Duh

    1. Re:uh by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 1

      no, they're not high, they're on drugs. huge difference.

    2. Re:uh by hajile · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A medicinal dosage of LSD is an order of magnitude lower than the quantity needed for most individuals to experience hallucinogenic side effects making it far safer than THC or opiates. In addition, it deals with medical conditions such as chronic joint pain or cluster headaches which aren't very treatable otherwise (and once again, it allows the person to remain cogent). The US government stopping clinical trials half-way through in the drug craze (trials that were already showing amazing potential) was criminal.

    3. Re:uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend of mine takes LSD to deal with cluster headaches. He'd tried all sorts of medications with few results but all of 1 tab per month is enough to stop 90% of his headaches. Considering the some of the medications he'd tried legally cause slight mental impairment, LSD definitely seems the best choice in spite of it's legal status.

  4. Re:Is this even news? by hoboroadie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is really ancient knowledge. Did science just get hep?
    Great.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  5. Welp, that's the end of that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The bible thumpers who think we should all face death kicking and screaming and in maximum pain will put an end to this research forthwith.

    1. Re: Welp, that's the end of that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wait! I thump bible and advocate LSD.

    2. Re:Welp, that's the end of that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironic, in that much of the bible, or most other holy books, reads like it was written under the influence. I mean, a wheel within a wheel, rolling in the sky?
      Seriously, the link between schizophrenic states, intoxication, and religious ecstasy doesn't need to be explained to folks here, does it?

  6. bad trip to the power of infinity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I can't image a worse trip than knowing your going do die and experiencing those thoughts while under the influence of LSD. For those that have never taken this drug, beyond the entertaining light, sounds and altered twisted reality and all, it can also puts your mind on a train of thought such that you can not break out of it unless someone is monitoring you, picks up on that and says, "dude, snap out of it." Somehow death and and LSD are a bad idea.

    1. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone is monitoring them, so your layperson concerns would be allayed by RTFA.

    2. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by Lisias · · Score: 2

      it can also puts your mind on a train of thought such that you can not break out of it unless someone is monitoring you, picks up on that and says, "dude, snap out of it." Somehow death and and LSD are a bad idea.

      Being that, perhaps, the reason the thing works with terminal patients.

      I had read that traumas can be overcome by carefully reviving it - slowly and shortly at first, and then slowly increasing the exposure until the anxiety drops to a manageable level, when then the patient can face the trauma and put it behind.

      Perhaps that exact "train of thought" manages to do something like that.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    3. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by afgam28 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to the article, the trial was for "LSD-assisted psychotherapy", so it was a combination between an acid trip and a session with a therapist. There was someone monitoring them, and they probably did have to get patients to "snap out of it" once in a while.

    4. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can't image a worse trip than knowing your going do die and experiencing those thoughts while under the influence of LSD. For those that have never taken this drug, beyond the entertaining light, sounds and altered twisted reality and all, it can also puts your mind on a train of thought such that you can not break out of it unless someone is monitoring you, picks up on that and says, "dude, snap out of it." Somehow death and and LSD are a bad idea.

      I was thinking the same thing. It's been several decades since I've dropped acid. But this could go one of two ways. I've had very few bad "trips" but I can't imagine how bad it could be if you know you are dying. And i hope they give them some valium when they come down. There's nothing worse than that strung out feeling afterwards. It's best if you can sleep through that. On the other hand, most things are pretty funny when you're tripping.

      I remember when I was a teenager doing LSD and I saw the grim reaper appear. After I got over my initial shock I pointed at him and laughed. Eventually he went away but took my walls and ceiling with him. My only thought at the time was that my dad was going to be really pissed when he sees this.

    5. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

      Eventually he went away but took my walls and ceiling with him.

      You mean he stole your tent?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by qpqp · · Score: 1
      You nuts? You always know that you're going to die, sometimes you forget about that or successfully repress these thoughts.

      altered twisted reality

      You mean, actual *literal* reality.

      it can also puts your mind on a train of thought such that you can not break out of it unless someone is monitoring you[...]

      That's why you're supposed to *always* have enough weed on you to calm down when tripping. Especially if you're alone.

    7. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      personally i've found acid/lsd to be a much more controllable trip by the user/tripper than a shroom/mushroom trip. you can control where acid takes you mentally; you can't as much with cowshit shrooms. don't know why; ask a chemist.

      acid trips can be very pleasant - as long as taken near nature, say a nice house with all indoor feelgoods while outside nearby is always the welcome, warming scent and feels of nature. preferably spring/summer; a nice warm fall is also great, but can mentally remind one of death too fiercely.

      talk and whistle with the birds; you will know how to live and die fully and peacefully.

      prescription only, but they pay -you- to take it. to be a more self-and-selfless citizen.

      paraphrasing bill hicks: "ain't it stupid that the kinds of drugs that let you -see through- all their bullshit are all illegal?"

    8. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by MicroBitz · · Score: 1

      No the patient would be quite focused. LSD used with a "good" physiologist or better a psychiatrist because they went to med school. LSD is a very useful drug for therapists. It really has the potential of changing the landscape like a MRI or microscope for doctors of the body, but here we have a real tool for therapists. It has been past over too long, because of public and political ignorance. A expert can cut 10y of therapy to less than 1.

    9. Re: bad trip to the power of infinity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely at that time the best person would be a good friend.

    10. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by subreality · · Score: 2

      I've had very few bad "trips" but I can't imagine how bad it could be if you know you are dying.

      Knowing you're dying can be a bad trip, no drugs required. Someone who's looped their fear until their soul is crushed isn't in much danger - they've already hit bottom.

      Knowing you're going to die is a terrible burden, but it presents you the opportunity to choose the last memories your friends and family will have of you. They can remember you living your last weeks in fear and dying terrified, or you spending some time recalling the good times, and perhaps forgiving some of the bad ones. That's all the control you have left of your legacy, and you don't have much time to take advantage of it.

      LSD, especially low* doses with someone to help guide can sometimes give people a new perspective. If they can relax their fixation on the fact that their time is up they may see the bigger picture - that we're all mortal, that life is a cycle, and that this is just a part of it. It may give you the opportunity to make your peace with the world. And if not, you're dead anyway. So why not?

      * There's adequate margin between free-association, preconception-questioning levels and moon-howling-naked.

    11. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any source for this?

    12. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have found more difficult trips to be the most rewarding in retrospect. Sitting through a difficult trip can actually cause a psychological/spiritual "breakthrough", i.e. lasting feelings of increased well-being for a very long period of time (often for the rest of one's life).

      I hate the term "bad trip", because it fixates the nature of the trip into something that it isn't: a state of mind that one has to get rid of. Simply facing the uncomfortable feelings can reduce suffering a lot and create breakthroughs, which I think happened in this research. This is a non-trivial thing to do in a society that learned us to suppress and hide negative feelings, so good guidance is essential: It is, in fact, more important than the drug. I am 100% confident that they could do this study all over again with psilocybin, DMT or even MDMA and produce the same results.

    13. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, if that's your idea of a bad trip, you're a pussy. I think the situation in TFA can't end in a bad trip. Those usually involve broken bones, handcuffs, and coming down on the drunk tank floor or in the emergency room getting injected with tranquilizers.

    14. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by JustOK · · Score: 1

      The Grim Reaper WAS your FATHER

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    15. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Any source for this?

      I don't know about LSD, but it's definitely true for MDMA and PTSD. Google it.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by the way, the PP is very interesting, it didn't deserved the -1 overrated it received.

    17. Re:bad trip to the power of infinity? by K10W · · Score: 1

      I've had very few bad "trips" but I can't imagine how bad it could be if you know you are dying.

      Knowing you're dying can be a bad trip, no drugs required. Someone who's looped their fear until their soul is crushed isn't in much danger - they've already hit bottom.

      Knowing you're going to die is a terrible burden, but it presents you the opportunity to choose the last memories your friends and family will have of you. They can remember you living your last weeks in fear and dying terrified, or you spending some time recalling the good times, and perhaps forgiving some of the bad ones. That's all the control you have left of your legacy, and you don't have much time to take advantage of it.

      LSD, especially low* doses with someone to help guide can sometimes give people a new perspective. If they can relax their fixation on the fact that their time is up they may see the bigger picture - that we're all mortal, that life is a cycle, and that this is just a part of it. It may give you the opportunity to make your peace with the world. And if not, you're dead anyway. So why not?

      * There's adequate margin between free-association, preconception-questioning levels and moon-howling-naked.

      sooo many people jump to the conclusions therapeutic doses are same as recreational, finally someone with a clue, wish I had mod points. The therapeutic doses are often barely noticable compared to rec ones

  7. You want to reduce my anxiety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's work on life extension and anti-aging technology which would mean we understand life processes much better than we do now.

    1. Re:You want to reduce my anxiety? by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're going to die no matter what, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to change that, all medical science can hope to do is delay it a bit. Coming to accept that knowledge rather than letting it eat away at your peace of mind is an important part of the dying process - the sooner you do it the freer the rest of you life will be, whether that be day or decades. It's an incredibly liberating, humbling, and inspiring thing to truly accept that everything you think of as yourself will come to an end, and the only trace left in this world will be the ripples you leave in other people's lives.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re: You want to reduce my anxiety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, cancer is an inevitable. Even if you could extend the body's ability to last longer, the genetic fuck ups during cell division and then division of the new cells, rinse and repeat, will only get worse and in larger numbers as time goes on

    3. Re:You want to reduce my anxiety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting frozen, so there's a nonzero chance that I will live, if not indefinitely, at least one hell of a long time.

    4. Re:You want to reduce my anxiety? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      You're going to die no matter what

      Actually, it is the opposite.

      Because the Universe can't tell the difference between you and another person, you are both.
      Because you are both, by transitivity, you are everybody.
      Hence, you will never die.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    5. Re:You want to reduce my anxiety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the Universe can't tell the difference between you and another person, you are both.
      Because you are both, by transitivity, you are everybody.
      Hence, you will never die.

      What have you been smoking??

    6. Re: You want to reduce my anxiety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can two thirty year olds make a zero year old baby? It's just information.

    7. Re:You want to reduce my anxiety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're going to die no matter what

      Actually, it is the opposite.

      Because the Universe can't tell the difference between you and another person, you are both.
      Because you are both, by transitivity, you are everybody.
      Hence, you will never die.

      LOL, as if word-play can have any actual effect on reality outside of your current perception of it..

    8. Re:You want to reduce my anxiety? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >Because the Universe can't tell the difference between you and another person, you are both.

      But it can. At least if you presume it has an awareness and is capable of distinguishing between you and a rock. You occupy a different space-time locus, and your quantum state is completely different.

      You can reach a similar conclusion from the perspective of Eastern philosophy in a manner that isn't complete nonsense, but it involves surrendering any concept of "you" that most people would recognize.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  8. Article not quite right by swb · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd say it was more like the first test in 24 years, I remember it being tested extensively in college.

    I do remember there was often a sense of finding a higher meaning or truth, but come morning we could never remember what it was. It was maddening. So one time I borrowed a pocket dictation machine during our, uh, testing, and we thought we'd record this great insight we had.

    Even though we finally went to bed with the idea that we had, at last, captured this great truth for posterity, when we listened to the tape the next day we were disappointed to find out that all we had recorded were the semi-coherent ramblings of some guys on LSD,

    1. Re:Article not quite right by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's after the comma? Oh please, there's a comma. There has to be something after the comma. What's after the comma? For fucks sake, what's after the comma?

    2. Re:Article not quite right by symbolset · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dude, that is the part of the story you are supposed to fill with your imagination.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    3. Re:Article not quite right by Immerman · · Score: 1

      If higher truths could be coherently expressed in language, religions would be out of business. Better philosophers than you have been trying for thousands of years, and yet pretty much every canonical text on the subject begins with some variation on the sentiment "The Tao which can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao". Read those writings and they too will seem like semi-coherent ramblings, unless and until you already know (*not* understand) the truths being discussed.

      Heck - for that matter try to accurately describe the flavor of an orange to somebody who has never tasted a citrus fruit. Language is only useful for communicating between individuals with similar frames of reference, and if you lose the intuitive knowledge of a fundamental truth when you sober up, then all the words in the world can't possibly convey it.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Article not quite right by Kingofearth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      People always make jokes like this about LSD, and granted a lot of "revelations" and "brilliant ideas" turn out to just be drug-induced delusions, but you really can learn a lot about yourself and other things from LSD. A lot of the things you learn are deeply personal and wouldn't be meaningful to anyone else. Some are things you already "knew", but get integrated better from the experience. And a lot of people have profound spiritual experiences, which, truth aside, provide their lives with meaning.

      And then there was the experiment where a couple dozen professionals who had been stuck on various problems for months were given LSD to determine it's effects on creative problem solving. (You can read about the experiment here: http://www.themorningnews.org/...) but here's a quote:

      "But here’s the clincher. After their 5HT2A neural receptors simmered down, they remained firm: LSD absolutely had helped them solve their complex, seemingly intractable problems. And the establishment agreed. The 26 men unleashed a slew of widely embraced innovations shortly after their LSD experiences, including a mathematical theorem for NOR gate circuits, a conceptual model of a photon, a linear electron accelerator beam-steering device, a new design for the vibratory microtome, a technical improvement of the magnetic tape recorder, blueprints for a private residency and an arts-and-crafts shopping plaza, and a space probe experiment designed to measure solar properties."

      Yeah, LSD is a lot of fun to use recreationaly, and it's easy to mock "the semi-coherent ramblings of some guys on LSD," but LSD has a lot of potential to offer our society if only we'd take it seriously.

    5. Re:Article not quite right by MicroBitz · · Score: 1

      Yes, that does happen. You have all kinds of (in that 12+ hour time) extremely insightful moments. However that does not mean if made to or you try, to focus the wall between your subconscious and conscious becomes fluid. Then you might see how you are making mistakes and why....

    6. Re:Article not quite right by dandm2007 · · Score: 1

      Doing the cryptic crossword in the Sunday paper was always a breeze after LSD on a Saturday night.

    7. Re:Article not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The disturbing thought is "what if reality really doesn't make any fucking sense?", "Are there things about the universe which are ungraspable?"

      "The most nonsensical thing about the universe is that it appears we can make sense of it all [through mathematics]" Now we know why.

    8. Re:Article not quite right by swb · · Score: 1

      I think there are those moments in normal life where you gain an understanding of something and you are struck by the profound nature of whatever truth it is you discover, sort of a breakthrough moment. These moments are fleeting and not usually common occurrences.

      I think part of what LSD does is to stimulate the brain in a way that makes more ideas seem like they provide a profound understanding or meaning.

      I think a lot of terminally ill people probably suffer from a lot of confusion and fear because they know they are dying and it is tied to a lot of emotions like fear and anger and confusion. When they talk about these things with a therapist on LSD they probably are able to have the experience of a profound understanding and meaning about their illness and dying.

      A lot of the early experimentation with LSD often involved someone who served as a "guide" -- quite often someone with a background in psychology, and I think those people often prompted a lot of discussion that enhanced this.

      I know in college we used to wander around campus and really be taken in by the details of architecture on campus buildings. I can remember being in a small, man-made concrete "amphitheater" and if you stood at the focal point of its shape you would hear a kind of perfect echo. Suddenly mathematics and architecture became unified in some kind of perfect synergy that was quite profound at the time. Later, of course, it was just a kind of ugly, modernist college campus landscape feature that nobody ever used for its theater-like purpose.

    9. Re:Article not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then there was the experiment where a couple dozen professionals who had been stuck on various problems for months were given LSD to determine it's effects on creative problem solving. (You can read about the experiment here: http://www.themorningnews.org/...) but here's a quote:

      "But here’s the clincher. After their 5HT2A neural receptors simmered down, they remained firm: LSD absolutely had helped them solve their complex, seemingly intractable problems. And the establishment agreed. The 26 men unleashed a slew of widely embraced innovations shortly after their LSD experiences, including a mathematical theorem for NOR gate circuits, a conceptual model of a photon, a linear electron accelerator beam-steering device, a new design for the vibratory microtome, a technical improvement of the magnetic tape recorder, blueprints for a private residency and an arts-and-crafts shopping plaza, and a space probe experiment designed to measure solar properties."

      I'm in favor of continued scientific investigation of LSD, but glancing through the linked article, there is no mention of a control group. Without performing the exact same procedure except substituting a placebo for the LSD there is no way of knowing whether the LSD actually helped and if so, how much.

    10. Re:Article not quite right by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I think part of what LSD does is to stimulate the brain in a way that makes more ideas seem like they provide a profound understanding or meaning.

      No, what it does is remove the "anttention filter" from your brain. It doesn't cause hallucinations; it's just that there are many possible ways of interpreting your sensory inputs at any given time, and LSD removes the filter that rejects all but the most likely, thus your attention moves between them constantly. But of course physical senses are not the only inputs to your consciousness. You also get a constant analysis from whatever brain structures you've managed to build over your lifetime. These, too, are sent unfiltered to your consciousness on a psychedelic trip, which is why it might "unstuck" you when solving a problem.

      It's not that LSD generates profound understanding, it's that it prevents you from tuning yourself out. You always had the ability to follow an idea and see what its implications are, but you were too busy doing whatever to bother, or maybe you simply didn't like them. LSD means you no longer have the ability to not follow them, and since everything is connected to everything else, you can start from almost anything and end up realizing very important (to you) things.

      On the bad side, the brain structures responsible for detecting threats are also unfiltered, thus you can end up in a cascade of anxiety-fear-terror ("bad trip"). However, removing the filter also makes you more aware of how your mind works, thus a large dose of LSD might allow you to recognize fear as a simple neural circuit firing, which can be ignored; this kind of self-awareness helps deal with it after the trip ends, too, and would be quite useful for dying patients. It also extends to things like addictions.

      I know in college we used to wander around campus and really be taken in by the details of architecture on campus buildings. I can remember being in a small, man-made concrete "amphitheater" and if you stood at the focal point of its shape you would hear a kind of perfect echo. Suddenly mathematics and architecture became unified in some kind of perfect synergy that was quite profound at the time. Later, of course, it was just a kind of ugly, modernist college campus landscape feature that nobody ever used for its theater-like purpose.

      This is a good example of what I meant: an ugly piece of architecture still implies numerous things about physics, aesthetics, math, etc. People are simply trained to ignore them all, and dismiss the whole thing as "an ugly piece of architecture". That's more efficient, but also means you are missing almost everything around you - and are going to get a profound insight should you ever stop to look.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    11. Re:Article not quite right by judoguy · · Score: 1
      Stop believing in magic. Seriously, repeat after me :These is no Soma, there is no Soma.

      Sorry folks, as someone who stopped counting at around 250 acid trips, I can tell you that discipline, hard work and NOT dulling/scrambling the senses is your best bet to transcend your current limitations.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    12. Re:Article not quite right by cusco · · Score: 1

      For you. For other people there are other routes that may be more appropriate. For one guy that I knew years ago it was the experience of falling through the ice on Lake Michigan that seemed to open him up to the other possibilities in what had previously been a very rigid and constrained life. For some it's a near-death experience, or even just an extremely lucid dream(s). YMMV

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    13. Re:Article not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People think that just because experiences can't articulate what exactly the meaningful experience they had was it means the experience didn't happen. I'd be hard pressed to describe the taste of milk if I was tasting it for the first time, but that doesn't make it any less real.

    14. Re:Article not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it was more like the first test in 24 years, I remember it being tested extensively in college.

      I do remember there was often a sense of finding a higher meaning or truth, but come morning we could never remember what it was. It was maddening. So one time I borrowed a pocket dictation machine during our, uh, testing, and we thought we'd record this great insight we had.

      Even though we finally went to bed with the idea that we had, at last, captured this great truth for posterity, when we listened to the tape the next day we were disappointed to find out that all we had recorded were the semi-coherent ramblings of some guys on LSD,

      Methinks you were trying too hard to distill what you felt into language. The insight you feel while on LSD is on a much deeper level than anything we could express with words. Basically, it's how you felt at the time that is the insight. Just remember that feeling in the back of your mind and I think you'll have gained something valuable.

    15. Re:Article not quite right by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Well there are very few great truths which can be transmitted by language, fewer that can be communicated by non - great writers, fewer still that can be transmitted in a few words, and basically zero of those that nobody's come up e with at this point in history. That leaves an unknown number that your mind stumbles upon when you're knocked out of your normal linguistic thought patterns, but can't manage to drag back when it returns.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    16. Re:Article not quite right by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      He won't be able to tell us until he comes out of his comma.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    17. Re:Article not quite right by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      And you couldn't find this truth until after 250 acid trips?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    18. Re:Article not quite right by Kingofearth · · Score: 1

      Magic? Did you read the article? There were concrete demonstrable results from the experiment. No magic involved, just a drug that activated certain receptors. Are you also going to argue that amphetamine doesn't actually make people better able to focus and any benefits it allegedly provides people in getting things done is "magical thinking"?

      I'm not saying do acid all the time. And of course had work and discipline are important to improving yourself and coming up with new ideas, but LSD opens up a different way of thinking about and perceiving things that a lot of people find very valuable. I fail to see how any of those things precludes the others.

      Ever hear the phrase "sleep on it"? It's true that a lot of the time sleeping and not thinking about something will cause you to come up with a solution to a problem. That certainly doesn't mean sleeping all the time and constantly ignoring your problems will solve everything.

      It's all about using the wide range of tools at your disposal.

  9. Similar Tests.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Were done with Psilocybin (Magic Mushrooms) on terminally ill cancer patients (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/psilocybin-anxiety-and-depression-in-cancer) and also PTSD sufferers (http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/psychedelics-show-promise-for-ptsd-treatment/). Psychedelics are beautiful substances which when used correctly can give the user a profound, new outlook on life and put personal matters into better perspective. There's no doubt these drugs are exceptional in acting as what I would describe as the psychological equivalent to a disk de-fragmentation on a computer; nothing is necessarily gained or lost, just arranged and sorted back into the order which is most conducive to the operation of the hardware (or human body, in this case).

    1. Re:Similar Tests.. by Kingofearth · · Score: 4, Interesting
      And there was the study done by John Hopkins Medical School which looked at the effects of psilocybin on healthy adults.

      Fourteen months after participating in the study, 94% of those who received the drug said the experiment was one of the top five most meaningful experiences of their lives; 39% said it was the single most meaningful experience.

      Critically, however, the participants themselves were not the only ones who saw the benefit from the insights they gained: their friends, family member and colleagues also reported that the psilocybin experience had made the participants calmer, happier and kinder.

      You can read more about it here: http://healthland.time.com/201...

    2. Re:Similar Tests.. by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Does it re order associative memory ? That sounds profound . Do you have anything to back this up?

    3. Re:Similar Tests.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience what LSD can do is remove or repress the automatic categorizations that the brain is continually making, and allow you to experience / think about things in their raw form. For a physical example, when laying on the lawn, rather than the sensation I was on a lawn, I felt every single individual blade of grass that was touching my skin at once. (such sensations can get quite overwhelming) For another, when looking at a chair, I would not see "a chair", but I would see the pattern of colors and the individual elements of the chair. It can work the other way around, too; such as seeing faces in every object.

    4. Re:Similar Tests.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I would describe it from a very limited experience was that as time goes on your 'mental chalkboard' becomes cluttered and a psychedelic experience would wipe it clean. YMMV...

  10. LSD helps you with everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wish it was a standard ingredient in my morning wheaties.

  11. Ok, and? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    People use all kinds of substances to reduce anxiety when they are aware of their upcoming deaths. Alcohol is a popular one. Cigarettes (countless stories of mortally wounded soldiers asking for a cigarette). I'm sure marijuana would work equally as well. It's not really that much of a shocker: mind altering substances (of any potency) make facing death easier.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Ok, and? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The difference is that alcohol very rarely solves the problem, it only masks it. Sober up and all your anxiety is still there. Psychedelics on the other hand can profoundly and permanently alter your perspective on the world and yourself. LSD in particular is known to be a powerful promoter of neuro-restructuring, in some extreme cases permanently altering things even as seemingly fundamental as the way people's brain processes visual information, so that far more of the brain responds directly to visual stimulation.

      There was some very interesting research done back before it was banned - including at least one chronic alcoholic who, over the course of a day or two of psychotherapy while under the influence, managed to kick his habit completely for at least several decades. Completely lost the urge to drink almost literally overnight.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  12. Jerry Garcia, prophet by mevets · · Score: 1

    The Grateful Dead takes on a deeper meaning.

  13. Hello Home Clinics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Home Clinics!

    Huxley had his wife intravenously administer a high dose of LSD shortly before he passed away.

  14. And they call that science by Stumbles · · Score: 0

    A feeble brained person could have told you without taking a mind altering drug like LSD.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
  15. Sample size of 12? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A sample size of 12 is ridiculously small. It is shocking that scientific journals still publish such dubious empirical results.

    On a side note, Chicago economist Emily Oster dissects a number of medicinal studies for their use of statistics and finds many flaws. She points out that medicinal schools concentrate strongly on the mechanics of being a doctor as opposed to focusing on decision theory and statistics.

    1. Re:Sample size of 12? by Nutria · · Score: 2

      A sample size of 12 is ridiculously small.

      With controversial topics, you have to start somewhere, and that place is always small.

      Then you maybe go on to the bigger studies.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:Sample size of 12? by hey! · · Score: 1

      In some ways a small sample size is advantageous in disproving the null hypothesis. It's cheaper and more practical to run a small study, especially in a case like this with a controversial substance that is perceived as risky and is hard to obtain.

      The disadvantage of a small sample size is that you might not achieve a statistically significant result at the standard 5% confidence level in situation you'd achieve a significant result with a larger sample size. But if you *do* achieve a statistically significant result with a smallish sample size, it's just as real as a statistically significant result with a larger sample size. That's the whole point of having a significance test.

      On the flip side, large sample sizes are problematic in that you risk obtaining a statistically significant result that has very little *practical* significance. It's not cost effective to orchestrate a large study that may uncover a real, but tiny difference between your treatment and control group.

      So you usually want to have in-between sample size. But if for practical reasons you can only have a small sample size, then it's still worth trying, because a positive result is a positive result, barring experimenter error.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  16. One drug != Another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Saying LSD is like marijuana is like saying Alcohol is like Caffeine.

    1. Re:One drug != Another by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Where did I say LSD was like marijuana? I am simply stating that there is a long history of using substances that alter how people think and perceive the world before they face death, either as rituals or even simply "calming the nerves". That LSD would have this effect really comes as no surprise.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:One drug != Another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "mind altering substances (of any potency) make facing death easier."

      With that sweeping generalization right there, I'd suppose.

    3. Re:One drug != Another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep. LSD alcohol and caffene are nothing like weeed

    4. Re:One drug != Another by ttucker · · Score: 1

      Where did I say LSD was like marijuana?

      Actually reading the post rarely has anything to do with trolling. It is more exciting to blurt out the first negative thing that comes to mind. Ignore the idiot, and feel better about life :)

  17. Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For me, my first trip, I thought I was gonna die.

  18. Am I the only one *not* worried/panicking... by Nutria · · Score: 1

    about my death?

    As long as I can remember (that includes Captain Kangaroo and the Watergate Hearings), I've known I'm going to die, and it's never worried me that much.

    No, I don't want to die, but it's gonna happen whether I want it to or not, so no use getting my tits in a twist about something I can't prevent.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:Am I the only one *not* worried/panicking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is you don't know when it will happen.
      If I told you you had a week to live you might feel differently.

    2. Re:Am I the only one *not* worried/panicking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it is worry in the sense you are using it. Knowing you are about to die is likely a pretty traumatizing realization. The drugs help them process that realization differently and cope with the trauma before passing.

      Obviously after you are dead, what you felt prior to dying doesn't matter at all. As a species capable of sympathy we generally like to hope people pass as peacefully as possible.

      All of that said, back to what i think was your original sentiment. I'm perfectly healthy (as far as i know) 30yrs old. I don't constantly "worry" about death - but occasionally i'll find myself really thinking about the fact that someday i'll be gone, and the world will keep spinning until one day it is consumed by the sun. After death is just like before birth... lots of shit happened outside the context of my existence, and the time-frame is meaningless. Like when you wake up from surgery and it feels like an instant - you die and the earth is just going to evaporate and it will be like nothing was ever here. It gets deep man, and i start to feel *something* as a result, but i don't know that it is "worry" per-say. Probably fear of the unknown, mixed with jealousy for those who get to experience a future i never will, mixed with disappointment at all the answers i'll never get to some of the questions that really fascinate me. There are some other emotions too. I don't live like that though. I don't think i'm unique in this respect.

    3. Re:Am I the only one *not* worried/panicking... by Nyder · · Score: 2

      about my death?

      As long as I can remember (that includes Captain Kangaroo and the Watergate Hearings), I've known I'm going to die, and it's never worried me that much.

      No, I don't want to die, but it's gonna happen whether I want it to or not, so no use getting my tits in a twist about something I can't prevent.

      I have never been worried about dying. Honestly, I thought most people were mostly scared to die because of religious reasons.

      While I'm not suicidal, I am looking forward to seeing what happens after I die.

      I'm guessing either nothing happens, and I don't exist anymore, that I wake up hooked up to some simulation, or reincarnation (which doesn't mean I'm not in a simulation, I could be in a simulation that starts you over in another life.)

      Either way, I have no control over it and it's going to happen, so I'm cool with it.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    4. Re:Am I the only one *not* worried/panicking... by Kingofearth · · Score: 1

      Probably fear of the unknown, mixed with jealousy for those who get to experience a future i never will, mixed with disappointment at all the answers i'll never get to some of the questions that really fascinate me. There are some other emotions too. I don't live like that though. I don't think i'm unique in this respect.

      You're definitely not alone. That sums up my view perfectly

    5. Re:Am I the only one *not* worried/panicking... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      The difference is you don't know when it will happen.

      Sure I do. It'll happen later

    6. Re:Am I the only one *not* worried/panicking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      about my death?

      As long as I can remember (that includes Captain Kangaroo and the Watergate Hearings), I've known I'm going to die, and it's never worried me that much.

      No, I don't want to die, but it's gonna happen whether I want it to or not, so no use getting my tits in a twist about something I can't prevent.

      There's a difference between knowing you're going to die eventually and facing imminent death. One is abstract knowledge; the other triggers the most fundamental programming every living being has: the survival instinct.

    7. Re:Am I the only one *not* worried/panicking... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      about my death?

      Yes. The rest of us just dread to face a world without you.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:Am I the only one *not* worried/panicking... by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      Whatever you do, do not go towards the light. When your subconscious looks for answers by running your whole life before your eyes and then says punt, its too late.

    9. Re:Am I the only one *not* worried/panicking... by NoZart · · Score: 1

      Not panicking per se, but having it loom is something that comes with age. I always was a "living the moment" guy, enjoying it to the fullest. Now i am pushing 40 and death comes to my thoughts every now and then (for the last year or so). I don't know if it's "just the mid life crisis" or if those thoughts will stay/intensify, but it really can inhibit life a small, but measurable bit.

    10. Re:Am I the only one *not* worried/panicking... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that and handles it about the same way.

      When you hear a honk and see a speeding truck about 3 feet from you, you'll wet your pants like everyone else.

    11. Re:Am I the only one *not* worried/panicking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never been worried about dying. Honestly, I thought most people were mostly scared to die because of religious reasons.

      ^-------------| This

      There's really nothing to fear about death until we've been had the fear taught to us, along with a hefty dose of self-loathing.

    12. Re:Am I the only one *not* worried/panicking... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Not of I'm inside a Sherman tank.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  19. Re: first post by mexsudo · · Score: 1

    What about the daily uncontrolled testing?

  20. Re:Is this even news? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is really ancient knowledge. Did science just get hep? Great.

    It's more about science getting approval. LSD is one of those compounds that is next to impossible for researchers to get access to and test in humans. For reasons I don't care enough about keeping kids off drugs or something to fully understand, some drugs are so wicked and dangerous and illegal that it is necessary to prevent any research (even about how dangerous they are; but definitely nothing suggesting that they aren't as dangerous as previously believed), even under hardass conditions, on terminal patients, and so forth. As quoth noted toxicologist and psycho-pharmacologist Jacqui Smith: "You cannot compare the harms of an illegal activity with a legal one." Why? Because one is illegal, of course!

    I wouldn't really call this 'ancient knowledge' (if the first synthesis was in 1938, it probably isn't shamanic lore); but it was certainly an active area of scientific interest pre-ban. That somebody would want another crack at it isn't even remotely news. That they managed to fill out the paperwork, on the other hand...

  21. on the downside.... by meglon · · Score: 1

    ....showed that 12 people who agreed to take the banned hallucinogenic drug during therapy sessions felt 'significant reductions in anxiety' about their lives ending.

    ....but far more anxiety about all those damn flying monkeys in pink tutu's slaughtering the polka-a-dot elephants with potato guns. And who knew poodle skirts were out of style? Definitely not the elephants!

    http://www.metrolyrics.com/whi...

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  22. Re:Is this even news? by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 2

    natural compounds like psilocybin, DMT, and mescaline have identical effects and have been used for thousands of years.

  23. Question the article doesn't answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question the article doesn't answer is "where did they get it?". The existence of such a study implied to me that pharmaceutical grade LSD was manufactured. Not that I'm looking to score some or anything; but it's my understanding that getting the process right is notoriously difficult. I've read stuff where people said nothing ever came close to the original Sandoz LSD.

    Here's the source which lays out the details of the study, and it's not too difficult to read. The source is in there too. Obviously you're not going to run over to Switzerland and score some now; but it's interesting to think that this stuff is being made. I had a teacher once who said she made some in an organic chemistry class (!). I doubt she tried it though, because of the aforementioned difficulty of getting it right.

  24. In the right enviroment with purpose... by MicroBitz · · Score: 1

    Let me be blunt. I have not taken LSD in 10+ years, but I had my time... of large doses, clean as you could hope for. (half D half L isomer) LSD experiences. It forces you to look at your past and come to terms with regrets. You will be the better for it. And can be very fun and interesting if you relax. I have no desire to use it soon. I have to many painful regrets, but i am not dieing (hopefully) anytime soon.

  25. The fed killed drug research for decades. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This has been a long known fact,

    Some of this was known back in the '60s and '70s. But the federal government decided to suppress it. In particular: Any drug with side-effects that were pleasant was considered a threat to the status quo of governance - a way for productive people to achieve happiness without driving industrial profit and/or part of a Communist conspiracy to rot the "Free World"'s moral fiber.

    There was a period where researchers would only get new grants if the conclusions of their studies stated that the drugs - psychedelics, marijhuana, etc. - were useless for medical purposes and/or dangerous. (The papers in Science, for instance, were often pathetically hilarious. The reduced data said one thing, while the conclusion said the opposite.)

    Meanwhile the government (notably with such things as the FBI's COINTELPRO program) smeared those (formerly highly respected scientists) who had been proponents of finding uses for them (especially those who had tried to use them to augment intelligence and experimented on themselves - often with bizarre results). The most prominent of these was Timothy Leary, though there were a number of others.

    Somewher in there the drugs were added to various "schedules" and banned from medical use.

    After a couple years of this, with any actual benefits buried in the noise, the government declared that it was "settled science" that there were no useful treatments using these drugs and stopped issuing new permits for their use in new research projects. (It's very much like research into global warming: You can't convince people on either side because the research is suspect due to the government becoming involved and pushing its horse in the race.)

    Then the government declared acts related to banned-drug trafficing, possession, and use to be "serious" crimes and imposed passed mandatory minimum sentences - recreating the scenario of alcohol prohibition, funding organized crime, filling up the prisons, and lining corrupt police personell's pockets with graft money. Then it passed RICO and created the same financial incentive structure that fueled the Spanish Inquisition - driving ever-increasing anti-drug activity and blocking attempts to repeal drug bans.

    And that's where it stood for decades. Negligible work on uses for the chemicals - either by organized research or private self-medication (with drugs of uncertain content and quality).

    So while Moore's Law drove the computes from giant cabnets filling floors of office buildings to chips in everything under the sun, work on a nimber of categories of drugs stagnated.

    The canabinoids of Marijuana, alone, have a number of apparent (but not adequately researhed) benefits:

      - They appear to be a specific treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (which, itself, seems to be a result of undermeidcation for pain - also driven by the "drug war").
      - Canabinoids (including at least one which does not produce a substantial "high") also appear to be a successful treatment for a debilitating form of childhood epilepsy.
      - Parkinson's disease eventually kills, not directly through loss of dopamine, but by the body's attempt to compensate for it by fouling up a system that uses the recently discovered endocanabinoids as neurotransmitters. (These are the chemicals that THC and its relatives mimic, much as opioids mimic endorphins.) This ends up with loss of memory and loss of appetite, and the victim starves herself to death. Canabinoids may help alleviate this and/or prolong life, (if only by reducing the tendency to self-starvation by inducing "the munchies").
      - Canabinoids have been claimed to arrest the progress of several cancers, including a brain cancer.d
      - Canabinoids have long been used for reducing the nausea of chemotherapy, easing self-starvation in cancer patients. (Similarly with side-effects of anti-AIDS drug coctails.)

    I could go on.

    But "more research is needed" to determine which (if any) of these effects are real, turn them into practical treatments, and deploy them. And it's not going to happen smoothly and rapidly with the government continuing to interfere.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find some of your assertions very intriguing. The government intervention and Science papers especially. Could you give me a starting point, from where I could follow it up? Thanks. George

    2. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by gIobaljustin · · Score: 2

      Sure, there are some benefits using marijuana, but if it's useful only for a few terminally ill people and dangerous for most normal people

      Far less so than alcohol.

      I understand why it's regulated.

      Regulated? In most places, it's outright illegal.

      But hey, isn't the US supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave? If so, then why are people so readily willing to trade freedom for security? We let the government molest us at airports (TSA), spy on our communications en masse (NSA), harass us by making sure we're innocent and not driving drunk (DUI checkpoints), violate our rights at the borders (unfettered border searches), send off protestors to free speech zones, declare portions (huge portions) of the country as constitution-free zones, prevent people from harming themselves by consuming drugs, and generally violate the constitution in many ways. How can we be called free or brave if we let such things happen? If we're so brave, we wouldn't be trading freedom for security, and you're a freedom-hating coward for suggesting that it's okay for marijuana to be illegal.

      makes me wonder if you have the symptoms of "belief of conspiracy".

      Makes me wonder if you ignore history in favor of your pro-government nonsense. Isn't it about time for you to be molested by your precious government thugs at the nearest airport?

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    3. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by eulernet · · Score: 1

      Sure, there are some benefits using marijuana, but if it's useful only for a few terminally ill people and dangerous for most normal people

      Far less so than alcohol.

      I'm not so sure. They are both bad. They are also not comparable.
      For example, I'm sure that guns are more dangerous than alcohol, so I can always find something more harmful.

      Regulated? In most places, it's outright illegal.
      But hey, isn't the US supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave?

      I'm not from US, but why do you use the "I want to be free" argument to allow anybody do everything what they want ?
      I understand that you believe that your government goes against you (and I don't disagree with the fact that stupid laws waste lots of money), but you have to realize that not everybody is a balanced adult.
      People tend to do stupid things with their body, and laws are here to reduce the various means to harm oneself.
      Of course, regulating everything is stupid, but I guess we are now in a time where people believe that if it's not in the law, then it's legal.

      Makes me wonder if you ignore history in favor of your pro-government nonsense. Isn't it about time for you to be molested by your precious government thugs at the nearest airport?

      Nope, I'm from France, and I don't understand why you are so US-centric.
      It's science, not politics !

    4. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by BVis · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure. They are both bad. They are also not comparable.

      Sure they are, in the fact that they are both psychoactive substances, like coffee or nicotine. Where they're not comparable is 1) current legal status and 2) to my knowledge, nobody has asserted that ethanol has beneficial effects on the body. I know that there are studies showing red wine seems to lower the risk of fatal heart disease, but IIRC it's the antioxidants in the wine that do the good, not the alcohol.

      And you'll also have to define "bad" for me. That could mean anything, it's totally subjective.

      People tend to do stupid things with their body, and laws are here to reduce the various means to harm oneself.

      You're not going to get anywhere with this argument if you're talking to the typical American. Once they hear something like 'protecting people from themselves' they immediately shut down and insist that anything the government does is bad if it forces them to modify their behavior (even if they would do so voluntarily, were there no law. They'll engage in the regulated behavior that they ordinarily would not do just to be spiteful). The theory is that you've got an inalienable right to be a total idiot. Where that falls down for me is the fact that frequently your choice to be a total idiot affects me negatively; for example, let's take motorcycle helmet laws. If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet the chances of you being severely injured or dying in an accident are increased. Sure, it's your body, go on with your bad self, but when you get hurt you incur medical costs. If you have private insurance (like most Americans) this increases their costs, so in order to protect their profit margins, they hike my premium. Same goes for life insurance; if you threaten their profits, they'll just charge everybody more. And the crazy thing is that most bikers would wear helmets voluntarily, so the requirement doesn't affect them at all. They see it as just one more freedom taken away if it's codified into law, and that is the worst thing that could ever happen, even if they would do it anyway.

      It's science, not politics !

      Sorry, this is just plain wrong. In the case of marijuana, its prohibition in the USA was not intended to protect public health, but to negatively impact the Mexican population that was crossing the border. That isn't science, it's racism. In addition, the science is starting to disagree with you. There isn't a whole lot of data at this point (at least in the USA, due to pot's Schedule I status) but hopefully (and this goes back to the subject of TFA) this will change as attitudes towards marijuana change (a majority of the population now believes it should be legalized).

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    5. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you omit all the drawbacks of using drugs, like schizophrenia, beliefs of conspiracy, fascination about death (leading to suicide), divided attention (leading to accidents)"

      I'm sure you have sources to back those claims up right? Because they sound a lot like something you made up. Not to mention there is no such thing as "drugs" as a single thing you could make specific claims about.

    6. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      The link to schizophrenia is completely unproven, I know plenty of conspiracy theorists who wouldn't touch coffee let alone drugs, and you'd think with the amount of people using marijuana, there would be a much higher incidence of suicide (unless you're pulling the old canard of this suicide case had used mj before his death, so obviously it caused it), and plenty of things cause diverted attention, lack of sleep being the single most dangerous one.

      You are doing an OK job of parroting the current antidrug propaganda though.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    7. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure. They are both bad. They are also not comparable.

      What the other guy said about this.

      I'm not from US, but why do you use the "I want to be free" argument to allow anybody do everything what they want ?

      I don't, and that's a straw man. For instance, I think murder should be illegal, so obviously I don't want anarchy.

      People tend to do stupid things with their body

      Yeah? Their problem. There are few--if any--instances where the government should be controlling people like this. Freedom > safety.

      but I guess we are now in a time where people believe that if it's not in the law, then it's legal.

      Since things are legal by default (in any sane country), that is, of course, true.

      Nope, I'm from France, and I don't understand why you are so US-centric.

      Because I'm from the US and I know more about my own country than others, and I therefore have many real-world examples of how current governments can abuse their powers.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    8. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I believe that the benefits you list can be achieved with relaxation, which will not create an addiction.

      One builds up a tolerance to LSD very quickly. In fact if you use it more than once every week or two, you will feel almost no effect.

      Still, it is not addicitive. Unlike the legal substances nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol, there are no substantial withdrawal symptoms when you stop using LSD.

    9. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      If you have private insurance (like most Americans) this increases their costs, so in order to protect their profit margins, they hike my premium. Same goes for life insurance; if you threaten their profits, they'll just charge everybody more.

      The problem with this is that we're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Free and brave people sacrifice many things (safety and convenience, for instance) to be free. If we were to get rid of everything that has an indirect negative affect on people, we'd have to ban all sorts of activities. Not just drugs, but things like ice skating (you could get hurt, which costs money), mountain climbing for fun (same deal), 'bad' food (unhealthy people are costly), and pretty much everything else. I, for one, would gladly pay higher taxes and insurance costs if it meant fewer laws.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    10. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The canabinoids of Marijuana, alone, have a number of apparent (but not adequately researhed) benefits:

          - They appear to be a specific treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (which, itself, seems to be a result of undermeidcation for pain - also driven by the "drug war").
          - Canabinoids (including at least one which does not produce a substantial "high") also appear to be a successful treatment for a debilitating form of childhood epilepsy.
          - Parkinson's disease eventually kills, not directly through loss of dopamine, but by the body's attempt to compensate for it by fouling up a system that uses the recently discovered endocanabinoids as neurotransmitters. (These are the chemicals that THC and its relatives mimic, much as opioids mimic endorphins.) This ends up with loss of memory and loss of appetite, and the victim starves herself to death. Canabinoids may help alleviate this and/or prolong life, (if only by reducing the tendency to self-starvation by inducing "the munchies").
          - Canabinoids have been claimed to arrest the progress of several cancers, including a brain cancer.d
          - Canabinoids have long been used for reducing the nausea of chemotherapy, easing self-starvation in cancer patients. (Similarly with side-effects of anti-AIDS drug coctails.)

      I could go on.

      If canabinoids are so useful, then why not produce them in a pill, instead of smoking the marijuana. Oh, wait, they did, and in clinical trials, they weren't proven very effective. Which begs the question as to whether the canabinoids are effective or the placebo effect is what is being observed. Even if there is some effectiveness, the question then should be is it more effective than current medications/treatments?

      For instance 2-bromo-LSD, a derivative of LSD is very effective for alleviating migraines and cluster headaches. Do they prescribe it for everybody? No, it is a last use drug because of other side effects (BOL is not a hallucinogenic like straight LSD). For 95% of migraine and cluster headache suffers, the standard treatments apply because they are effective.

      You mention canabinoids as a treatment for some types of childhood epilepsy. Yet, the only support for that and most other "treatments" is anecdotal. When actual clinical trials are performed, the results do not tend to support the claims.

      Yes the federal government banned LSD, but not because it made people feel good. There was plenty of research into it and it was determined that the good did not outweigh the bad. That said, the federal government only has control over the US. Foreign governments also banned it, even those that are much more liberal with drug policy.

      I am sure you could go on, but what is needed is scientific proof of the effectiveness of these compounds, not anecdotal.

    11. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by BVis · · Score: 1

      Well, if you take it to a ridiculous extreme, yeah, all that stuff would be banned. How fortunate it is that it isn't all or nothing. Give your hyperbole a rest, it's been used a lot I think.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    12. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One builds up a tolerance to LSD very quickly. In fact if you use it more than once every week or two, you will feel almost no effect."

      This isnt quite true. You just increase the dosage. I went for a six month period of time taking acid about every three or four days - I got up to taking around 10 hits of blotter at a time. That seemed to be a consistently productive dosage, at least for me.

    13. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      Well, if you take it to a ridiculous extreme

      You mean, if I apply the exact same logic to various other situations.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    14. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by Megol · · Score: 0
      Psychological and physical side effects of using cannabis are well documented. There are strong indications that regular cannabis use can trigger psychotic episodes or even chronic psychotic state. This is when _compensated_ for self-medicated use of cannabis BTW. Try to read some reports from mental health professionals.

      The same is true for LSD use, for some people the use leads to life-long delusions. That such delusions can help people that are already terminal is a good thing if it doesn't harm interactions with relatives. But already the treatment of e.g. terminal cancer patients make use of drugs in a way not used normally, often with near lethal or even (if for a longer period) lethal doses of opioids or other pain killers.

      Saying that (the above) drugs aren't worse than alcohol is at best dishonest and at worst outright delusional. Alcohol doesn't have the same kind of side effects unless one is addicted to it - and even then physical effects are more likely to be more damaging.

    15. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      What a load, there is no such link, there is just a correlation between cannabis use and psychotic episodes, there is not one study which has provided anything close to proof of cannabis actually causing the underlying problem (Ie; no cannabis = no psychotic symptoms). The only thing they've demonstrated is that cannabis can cause an earlier onset in people already predisposed to psychotic episodes.

      Have you noticed they've continued to move the goal posts on these studies, when I was a kid, cannabis could cause impotence, a joint was as bad as 10 cigarettes, it caused brain damage, and had no medical value at all.

      Those two drugs are nowhere near as bad as alcohol, and I say that as a drinker, alcohol has permanent health effects, actually does kill brain cells, causes violence and poor impulse control, can cause birth defects, and kills millions a year worldwide. Your arguments are weak, and your mom dresses you funny.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    16. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Personally, I believe that the benefits you list can be achieved with relaxation, which will not create an addiction.

      You say that as though consumption of cannabis (calling it marijuana when the rest of your post isn't written in Spanish makes no sense) leads to addiction. It doesn't, as it is not possible to develop chemical dependency on cannabis.

      Of course, if by "addiction" you didn't mean "chemical dependency", then indeed it's also possible to become "addicted" to relaxation (or any other pleasurable activity).

      Also, your post is hilarious. Those "drawbacks" that you list are straight out of Reefer Madness. You come across as either an ignorant clown or a subtle troll.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    17. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by boristdog · · Score: 1

      there are some benefits using marijuana, but if it's useful only for a few terminally ill people and dangerous for most normal people

      I believed this old saw for 48 years of my life. Then I tried cannabis. I've been a semi regular user for about 3 years now. Let me tell you about my life for the last 3 years:

      I have far less stress, even though my job has become more stressful.
      I sleep much better, helping relieve even more stress.
      I seem to have more free time, so I am using my time more wisely.
      I have finished projects around the home that have been languishing for years
      I have a better attitude about life
      I plan more for the future and I do more
      Sex is even more awesome

      So where I used to be a prohibitionist, I am now an advocate. YMMV, but it works for me.

    18. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      Personally, I believe that the benefits you list can be achieved with relaxation

      Are you fucking kidding me? Tell that to my friend who's currently undergoing chemotherapy to combat stage IV cancer, which is likely to kill her within the year. It's a little hard to just relax without outside help knowing that she's about to leave a family behind at the age of 30...

    19. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ridiculous extreme? Have you been paying attention lately? One of those topics is actually being discussed, or do you not recall the large beverage issue in New York? There really are assholes out there who want to protect you from yourself no matter what the consequences are to freedom, and people like you are the ones who let it happen because they turn a blind eye to it, either because you don't see what's coming next, or you're too selfish and think that it might affect your precious pocket book.

    20. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I think though that some of these ideas are changing... full employment is impossible and govmts need to find other ways to occupy their time than work.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    21. Re: The fed killed drug research for decades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not well documented. It's well known that, for example, schizophrenics or people at high risk for developing schizophrenia, self medicate using various drugs, principally nicotine and secondly cannabis. Cannabis studies which find a correlation with schizophrenia haven't been able to exclude the self-medicatung subset.

      I think all this cannabis-cures-what-ails-you to be highly suspect. But there literally has been a 50+ year open conspiracy to suppress cannabis use completely. I've seen lobbying presentations in DC attacking marijuana, and the experience was utterly surreal--like watching young earth creationists admonish congressman, except the anti-weed lobbyists control the majority policy position.

      We have no choice but to ride out the cannabis euphoria until level heads can prevail.

    22. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why the AMA doesn't consider marijuana a "medicine" and the entire "medical marijuana" campaign is more of an excuse to get a foot in the door for legal sales for recreational use. A friend has a son in California who has one of the required cards that one needs to buy medical marijuana in the state. He has said that there are doctors that will process the forms so you can get one upon request...not much more difficult than getting a membership to Costco apparently. Of course, he uses his son's card whenever he goes to visit.

    23. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by mmell · · Score: 1
      Correct. Not addictive. Habituating.

      The tolerance you speak of building up isn't a neurological or biological tolerance - it's a functional aspect of your mind, learning to function and cope despite chemical interference with the underlying organic functioning of the brain.

    24. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eulernet = propaganda victim and authoritarian...

      i despise authoritarians: must be i'm hallucinating they are trying to impose their SHIT morality on everyone...

    25. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are an authoritarian idiot, i don't care where you are from...

      to be FREE, means you are free to make 'mistakes'...

      though mj use is not a 'mistake', it is a choice of a mild intoxicant, and your equating it with alcohol abuse is telling: you don't know shit about shit...

      you know, i *USED* to be a goody-two-shoes, my-body-is-a-temple, i-get-high-on-life type of intolerant asshat like you, then i grew up...
      dick

    26. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Which begs the question as to whether the canabinoids are effective or the placebo effect is what is being observed.

      It also brings up the question of why they didn't try an inhaled version rather than an oral version. Marijuana is known to have antiemetic benefits, for example, and delivering it via the lungs is both faster and avoids the problem of vomiting up the drug before it's absorbed. Pills are not the best way to deliver antiemetics; the leading anti-nausea drug (Ondansetron) is frequently delivered rectally or via IV. Delivery by inhalation has substantial advantages.

      I really don't know why there aren't inhaled versions. I don't know if it's because research indicated that it wouldn't work, or if it's because it's so difficult to experiment on THC-derived compounds that nobody wanted to put forth the effort.

      It is *not* the miracle drug that its proponents like to pretend it is, but it seems to be better than placebo for various indications and has the advantage of being cheap. And it would be readily available, were it not for laws preventing that. Since it appears to be no more dangerous than other commonly-available drugs, I don't see why it remains a Schedule I drug.

    27. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm not from US, but why do you use the "I want to be free" argument to allow anybody do everything what they want ?

      Freedom is never going to be absolute; your freedom to kill me conflicts with my being free to live. However, if my freedoms are going to be limited, I want a reason why. I understand why I'm not legally able to drive a car on public roads without insurance and a license, while respecting a lot of restrictions. I don't see a good reason why I can't smoke marijuana if I like (tried it once, didn't like it actually) or take LSD (never tried it).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    28. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a nation where we routinely provide people dying in agony from cancer with insufficient opioids for fear they may become addicted and ruin their lives.

    29. Re:The fed killed drug research for decades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is, how many self - medicated users of these products are in fact aided by them. Of course you can find some number of bad outcomes associated with anything, by random spurious correlation at a minimum. But there is no good way to balance these occasional tests of the drugs on sick people and indicatIons of success vs counts of bad outcomes from use in the general population.

  26. Another sensationalized article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Drug advocates and addicts will misinterpret this to justify recreational use of drugs, even though we are talking about terminally ill patients taking LSD with the assistance of trained professionals.

    2. No shit, getting high or drunk numbs anxiety. Look at how many miserable people are dependent on booze and drugs to make their lives bearable. That's not science.

  27. hallucinogens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Aside from the fact that "get high" can refer to drugs besides marijuana, marijuana itself is technically classified as a mild hallucinogen. I've never understood this classification because :
    (a) marijuana makes you lethargic while most hallucinogens make you more energetic,
    (b) marijuana can cause visual effects but only after you've taken so much it becomes unpleasant.
    (c) marijuana has a predictable effect while serious hallucinogens are much more susceptible to "set & setting".

    Anyways, mescaline, the naturally occurring drug closest to LSD, has been used for religious purposes since before recorded history. Also, LSD is knowing for leaving a lasting impression. Ain't surprising that controlling the "set & setting" allows for serious psychological work.

    Also, psychedelic mushrooms are useful for treating alcoholism in that you should not take alcohol when on mushrooms, so partying on a mushroom trip means a night out sans alcohol.

    1. Re:hallucinogens by alexborges · · Score: 2

      Marijuana unpleasant due to excess?

      I think you need to try again, sir.

      --
      NO SIG
    2. Re:hallucinogens by mooterSkooter · · Score: 1

      >> marijuana can cause visual effects but only after you've taken so much it becomes unpleasant.

      Try vapourizing it. Using this method, you can keep going without any unpleasant effects. So I hear anyway...

    3. Re:hallucinogens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      marijuana itself is technically classified as a mild hallucinogen. I've never understood this classification because : (a) marijuana makes you lethargic while most hallucinogens make you more energetic,

      The fact that most A are B doesn't make something that is not B automatically a not-A. "Energetic" is, roughly, dopamine and/or norepinephrine release and/or reuptake inhibition. You seem to equate "hallucinogenic" with "serotoninergic", which, yes, is a mode of action of a lot of popular recreational substances (e.g. phenetylamines, tryptamines and the like -- these are usually stimulating because of concurrent dopamine release, MDMA being the prime example), but one can elicit hallucinations e.g. by NMDA antagonism (e.g. ketamine, DXM, PCP), by cholinergic inhibition (e.g. dimenhydrinate, scopolamine, atropine), even opiates can elicit them (salvinorin, although atypical, is a good example).

      (b) marijuana can cause visual effects but only after you've taken so much it becomes unpleasant.

      But hallucinations != visuals. Visuals are the winampy or mandala-like closed-eye kaleidoscopes or curtains and walls breathing or hands leaving trails -- visual candy that you know is not real. Hallucinations are where you don't know -- datura poisonings come to mind -- where people fall into subsequent half-an-hour long trips, where they could swear they were somewhere else. What one experiences in dissociative "holes" could be another example.

      (c) marijuana has a predictable effect while serious hallucinogens are much more susceptible to "set & setting". Anyways, mescaline, the naturally occurring drug closest to LSD, has been used for religious purposes since before recorded history. Also, LSD is knowing for leaving a lasting impression. Ain't surprising that controlling the "set & setting" allows for serious psychological work.

      Fair enough.

      Also, psychedelic mushrooms are useful for treating alcoholism in that you should not take alcohol when on mushrooms, so partying on a mushroom trip means a night out sans alcohol.

      Nonsense. They can be useful in that they have the potential to give one the insight required to see through the denial that fuels the alcoholism, but you can perfectly well drink when partaking in psylocibin. The psylocybin mildly inhibits the effect of alcohol, while alcohol takes some of the edge off the come-up, but also dulls the experience somewhat.

      The substance of choice for treating alcoholism is ibogaine.

    4. Re:hallucinogens by mmell · · Score: 1

      No, I've smoked too much and gotten sick. Our bodies just aren't designed to filter smoke out of air.

    5. Re:hallucinogens by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Well then, eat it bro.

      --
      NO SIG
  28. According to more recent research by Air-conditioned+cowh · · Score: 1

    According to this scientific paper. Acid blows holes in your aura, man, ain't nothing but a quick buzz and they won't take no LSD.

    1. Re:According to more recent research by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      And there's always the agony of acid reflux. (Suggested by my android keyboard)

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  29. Wasn't LSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember an article about LSD being used in the 1950s as a psychotropic therapy to instantly alter behaviour. Just think how much has been wasted on hypnotherapy, counseling and self-help books since then.

  30. Enlightenment by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Some people describe their first LSD trip being a truly enlightening experience which allowed them to see life and the world in a completely new perspective. Can you explain this more specifically?

    1. Re:Enlightenment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. From their point of view it is. From a non-user's point of view it isn't. Most of the user's I've encountered have actually been fairly boring people. Pot does this to a lesser degree. Habitual users are what I like to call "moon beamy". They think it means something. I just see them as prone to believe a lot of things. So yes, there is a connection between drugs and religion. It makes them believe a lot of shit. That's why potheads often truck with the Tarot, psychic, etc. crowd. No thanks.

    2. Re:Enlightenment by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 2

      I suppose one could try to explain, but a tiny square of blotter paper is worth about a billion words.

    3. Re: Enlightenment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MDMA is pure enlightenment through and through. Give it a whirl

    4. Re:Enlightenment by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      I can. It shuts down the part of your brain that rationalizes things. You can't make complex thoughts to justify your actions. You just do what you normally would do, like eat some cake... but instead of "I'm eating this because it's the weekend and I'm hungry" you think "Cake... taste good... me eat... I LIKE SUGAR!" As a result you usually end up finding out some truths about yourself you rather would not have admitted to. In the end it's almost always a good thing, and you end up being a better person because of it. My use of it decades ago lead me to therapy, not directly because of the drug, but instead because the drug made me realize I had some psychological issues that needed to be addressed.

      On the downside it makes it difficult for you to tell the difference between your imagination and reality. This is why it can have different effects on different people. I was pretty neurotic and anxiety ridden back then so I had a difficult time knowing that concerns were unfounded, people weren't hating on me, etc... Also, it seems like it doesn't do any long term damage, but I knew some people back then that seemed drawn into it... I wouldn't say addiction, but maybe they had some problems they were trying to escape... they ended up doing it A LOT... Like once or twice a day. Their lives did not turn out well at all. I know for a fact one is mentally disabled now. So there's that risk as well.

      I would not recommend Acid to anyone. I'd say you have a very good chance that it will do you some good if you do it once or twice. But the risks are high, and dependence is a real concern and very dangerous. Also, if you were going to take it, it's best to have someone experienced along with you and be in a safe secluded location. Having sober people show up is about the worse thing that can happen... especially if they are police or other authority figures.

    5. Re:Enlightenment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Having sober people show up is about the worse thing that can happen."

      I agree with everything you said, and even that -- BUT, depending on how your trip is going, having sober people show up can actually be pretty hilarious!

    6. Re: Enlightenment by Zone-MR · · Score: 1

      I'm as far from being religious as you could possibly imagine. I strongly believe the scientific method is the single best tool humanity has to discern reality from misleading inferences our minds tend to make due to confirmation bias and other evolved approximations.

      I'm an occasional user of both psychidellics and cannabis.

      Far from making me believe bullshit, my experiences with these altered states of consciousness have been not only incredibly beautiful sensory experiences but profoundly fascinating from an intellectual standpoint.

      In short, LSD makes you ponder everything. It makes you look at the world around you in a new light. You already know rationally that when you look around you, you aren't directly looking at reality. You're looking at your brain's model of reality. A model generally informed and refined via your senses, but imperfect nonetheless. You don't typically perceive just how imperfect it is, and how arbitrary the mapping of sensory input to emotional experiences really is.

      The first time I tripped, my faith in my own mind's model evaporated. I knew the outside reality hadn't changed, but *my* world changed in every way you could possibly imagine, and many ways you could not. Most of this experience is almost impossible to put into words forged by humanity to describe far more everyday experiences, but if you imagine vividly seeing colours you've never seen before, intuitively grasping the motion of objects through multiple dimensions, and feeling emotions you didn't know 'exist', you'll have a slight hint of what it's like.

      Your rational mind does not go away. You know when you see a brand new and impossible colour it's not because reality has changed, but because your brain uses colour as an internal label for certain perceptions, and what colour it has chosen to represent the sensation of a particular wavelength of light hitting your retina is totally arbitrary. You cry at how beautiful some of the other contenders were. You realise you could just as easily have been born a different being, who's organs can sense a broader spectrum, and it's fascinating to even imagine how this could 'appear' as an experience. You marvel at the wonder and the beauty of the vast range of sensory experiences you can perceive, and the ones that you as a human cannot, but other life forms possibly can.

      What I experienced wasn't a delusion. It was a heightened state of imagination in which I could feel things that would normally be impossible, and ponder the fascinating feats and compromises evolution had to make to map the outside reality to the specific way in which we humans perceive the world. This contemplation, introspection, and abandonment of trust in anything your brain convinces you is real is something I'd more closely associate with science than any other philosophy.

    7. Re:Enlightenment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post is wrong.

      It does not shut down *any* part of the brain. It just puts them all into overdrive.

      eg. instead of "eat cake because hungry" you think "why does this cake exist? where did all the atoms in it come from? how many stars did it take to make this cake?" etc, etc, till you realize you've been staring at a cake pondering it's quantum theory for 10 minutes before you take a bite and realize how bland cake is.

    8. Re:Enlightenment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anon because society isn't very openminded.

      I describe my first LSD trip the same way, despite taking a relatively low dose that only just barely triggered hallucinations.

      LSD, for me, alters my thought process significantly; I can't really describe it. Our whole lives, we're the same people. Sure, we change, but in the end, your mind is still your mind. You can't ever experience what having someone else's mind is like. Nor can you describe to others what it's like to have your mind. Language just isn't designed to express those types of sentiments. Consuming LSD is perhaps the closest we can get to taking a vacation from our own minds.

    9. Re:Enlightenment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the risks are high, and dependence is a real concern and very dangerous.

      Misleading. The effective dose is a tiny fraction of the lethal dose, meaning it is not dangerous. Also, studies have shown that LSD is negatively addictive. That is, the more you do, the less you want to do.

      Anecdote: Having been exposed to many drug abusers over the course of my life, I can't say that a single one of them was hooked on acid. Cokeheads, pill addicts, drunkards, people from all walks of life. But never anyone hooked on acid. And I say that as someone that's eaten roughly 100 hits of acid (over the course of years) myself.

      Posting anon because society isn't very openminded.

  31. Aldus Huxley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was a poineer.

  32. i'm a scientester by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting, I was just testing this a few months ago. LSD is strong, and I can only imagine what these people thought of death or "god" after tripping.

  33. somewhat Timid by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit Leary of this kind of research.

    1. Re:somewhat Timid by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Have you tried smoking Timothy?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  34. Re:Is this even news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not so much a matter of filling out the paperwork, as a matter of "any paperwork for research that doesn't set out to agree with the neoprohibitionists' Drugs Is Teh Devil agenda will be summarily canned, period."

    It's exactly the difference between the faith-based and investigation-based approaches to anything else: Once the faithful have decided they're Correct, they're not only not interested in pursuing any lines of inquiry that might suggest otherwise but actively work to surpress them.

  35. Better Dope by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    If we supplied the terminal patients with plenty of opium and a pipe they would probably be far happier than at any time in their lives. Pain would not be an issue and fear would be at zero. Sadly our society just can't stand the idea that a pain killer as effective as opium just might mean that a terminal patient might only live 28 days whereas without opium that might get to suffer a few more days. Maybe a nice dose of LSD and a good pipe full of opium would be even better. Instead of going out with a whimper why not go out grinning and giggling and really happy about the experience?

    1. Re:Better Dope by mooterSkooter · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. I intend to be fuzzed-up to the eyeballs on (currently) illegal drugs when my life draws to a close. I will never try any of the 'dangerous' drugs before that time though.

  36. Re:Is this even news? by sFurbo · · Score: 4, Informative

    They seem to have similar effects, but these things are notoriously hard to study objectively, so anecdotal evidence is not enough to establish that they have identical effects (and it would be really weird if they did. How should such different molecules get identical pharmacokinetics and pharmarkodynamics?).

  37. Re:Is this even news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apologies for spoiling the joke, but for our non-UK friends: Jacqui Smith is a former Labour home secretary, drugs witch-hunter (and hypocrite) extraordinaire, and general fuckwit when it comes to drug policy. She has no relevant experience except for having smoked a few joints.

  38. Re:Is this even news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just made those words up to sound "smart."

  39. Therapy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's nice to see this being discussed. I've only done LSD once but would seriously recommend trying it before you die. I know drugs and users are often found upon but its seriously one of my top life experiences. If you have the right setting with the right people, it's an unparalleled experience.

    Besides coping with death it would probably be a great substance for couples therapy. You communicate on an emotional level with people and your self that you may never experience with out it. The laws are really unfortunate. Incredibly harsh. Restricting this to therapy would do a lot of good for a lot of people.

  40. same as booze being illegal in saudi arabia by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Oh get over it. LSD is no different in being illegal but in paper only.

    Just as liquor is illegal in Saudi Arabia, yes they are nut jobs for making it so, but no different to the
    west making LSD illegal too.

    Live a little try it.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:same as booze being illegal in saudi arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm sorry, but I'm going to disagree strongly. There actually are several good reasons why LSD is a banned substance. I'd sit you down with my grandma who worked in LA as an RN from the 60s into the 90s, but alas, she died last year. But she had stories about LSD. Lots of them. Like basically several a night for 20 years. The most entertaining one in my book was a man who while on acid somehow decided filling his rectum with concrete was a good idea. I'm not sure he survived. There was of course the regular people peeling their skin off because they "had ants under their skin" and such. You go back to a few months ago, and though not LSD, but a different hallucinogen, mushrooms I think, a 17 year old kid stabbed one of his friends 8 or 9 times in the chest, killing him, and attacking the 3 others while on a camping trip. Things going horribly wrong while on hallucinogens isn't exactly rare, and as such should really only be used while under supervision. They are in fact so common, that they have an official slang term, "bad trip".

      Beyond the bad trips, there's also the issue that the military experimented with using LSD as a mind control agent back in the 50s. This was abandoned however due to the unpredictable nature where you could get people to do things they normally wouldn't, but you didn't have fine control over it. This was demonstrated quite famously be a man named Charles Manson, who used it to brain wash his "children", sent them to go murder somebody at a house, can't remember if they went to the wrong house or if the person wasn't there/had sold the house, but anyway, they just went and killed whoever happened to be there at the time.

      It's not exactly a harmless substance, and the dangers are quite will documented. If you choose to ignore them, well, that's your own prerogative, but don't claim it's harmless or even on the same plane as alcohol.

    2. Re:same as booze being illegal in saudi arabia by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 2

      Never heard of anyone doing anything violent under the influence of alcohol, you must be right...

      or dumb.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    3. Re:same as booze being illegal in saudi arabia by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you considered that she only saw the extreme edge cases? The vast majority of people who take LSD never end up in an emergency room because of it. The vast majority never end up hospitalised. She, by definition of her job, only saw the worst.

      > Things going horribly wrong while on hallucinogens isn't exactly rare, and as such should really only
      > be used while under supervision. They are in fact so common, that they have an official slang term,
      > "bad trip".

      Depends what you mean by "horribly wrong" or "bad trip". "Bad Trip" is used to describe any situation where a person has an emotional experience that they are having trouble handling. Yes, this happens. I have seen it happen. It can be loud, it can be scary, but it really turning into anything significant IS indeed rare.

      In fact, if it wasn't rare, it wouldn't make the news.

      Yes, its true, psychedelics can provide people with very intense emptional experiences, which are not always fun; anyone using them should be aware of and prepared for that. Anything beyond that is just unwarranted fear.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:same as booze being illegal in saudi arabia by boristdog · · Score: 3, Informative

      From what I know of LSD (not having tried it) most of the bad effects are due to impure product, substituted product (i.e. it wasn't LSD) or wildly improper dosage.

      Unsurprisingly, this is what happens when ANYthing is illegal and therefore all usage is uncontrolled. Look at alcohol during prohibition. It was frequently tainted with methanol, ethelyne glycol and god knows what else. Many people went crazy, committed horrible, violent, harmful acts or died suddenly because they drank tainted product. The major harm from illegal drugs stems from the very fact that they are illegal.

      If drug purity and content were controlled and dosage information were freely available, the reduction in harm from these drugs would drop significantly. People who are going to do drugs are going to do them if they are legal or illegal. But if they were legal and controlled, people would know what they were getting, they would know how much they could do and they would be more likely to seek help if they had problems without fear of jail time. And far fewer people would commit crimes to get their next fix.

      Yes, there would still be abusers and harm done, just like we still have chronic alcoholics, but the harm to the general public would be much less.

      So no matter what your grandma said about LSD abusers there are far more reasons to legalize and have some control over drugs than to leave them in the murky shadows of the underworld.

    5. Re:same as booze being illegal in saudi arabia by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      "Bad Trip" is used to describe any situation where a person has an emotional experience that they are having trouble handling.
       
      There's another definition- any situation where a person has such reduced cognitive ability that their actions preclude survival. The stereotype is the guy who thinks he is superman and tries to stop the locomotive, but other similar situations exist.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    6. Re:same as booze being illegal in saudi arabia by mmell · · Score: 1
      You didn't even mention the exceedingly well documented fact (FACT) that LSD is highly neurotoxic. Brain damage (even if it's only a small percentage of nerve cells and even if they're scattered throughout the brain instead of clustered in one location) is a documented effect of using LSD. Unlike an injury, it doesn't wipe out the (speech/balance/visual) center of the brain - it just generally does damage, leading users to the mistaken impression that there is no damage ("Hey, I can still walk/talk/chew bubblegum", etc).

      Know any regular recurring users of LSD? Noticed any decline in their cognitive skills over the years? No? You need to stop doing acid with your buddy.

    7. Re:same as booze being illegal in saudi arabia by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      Can you cite some studies for this supposed fact of yours? I've done quite a lot of research into these sorts of things and not once have I heard anything about LSD causing brain damage.

    8. Re:same as booze being illegal in saudi arabia by tokencode · · Score: 1

      LSD has not been shown to be neurotoxic at recreational doses. Please cite your source or stop spreading bogus information backed up by nothing more than our opinion. Many people credit the substance with creative inspiration that allowed them to solve incredibly complex problems. LSD may have aided in the discovery of the structure of DNA.

    9. Re:same as booze being illegal in saudi arabia by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Have you considered that she only saw the extreme edge cases? The vast majority of people who take LSD never end up in an emergency room because of it. The vast majority never end up hospitalised. She, by definition of her job, only saw the worst.

      True, but several incidents a night at one emergency room suggests that these cases are fairly common. Thing is, LSD is not regulated, and it's hard to know exactly what you're getting. It's quite possible that, if LSD were legal and non-prescription, it would be basically harmless. Further study is needed, and not bloody likely to happen any time soon with the fanatic anti-some-drug people in the US.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:same as booze being illegal in saudi arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thing is, LSD is not regulated, and it's hard to know exactly what you're getting.

      This, in the US, at least at the moment, NBOMe is very commonly sold as LSD. They have somewhat similar effects, but on NBOMe you can lethally overdose from 2,000ug, which is 2-4 times the typical recreational dose, while there's no known LSD overdoses from recreational use. Any "LSD" overdoses are almost definitely from research chemicals being sold as acid.

      And yeah, concerning the safety of LSD, manufacturers have to test their product before they sell it. They often do this by "thumbprinting", or taking a generous chunk of the pure chemical. Because of the small dose needed, this chunk can have as much LSD as a couple blotters. (A blotter is usually 500 tabs.) While new guys often have to be watched the week after, there's no recorded cases of an overdose from doing this.

    11. Re:same as booze being illegal in saudi arabia by CiscoWheeler · · Score: 1

      I was just having a discussion with a psychiatrist who is adamantly against pot legalization because of the reported potential link to schizophrenia. His opposition is understandable, considering the devastation the condition brings to his patient's lives. The nurse with the ER horror stories wasn't making them up - I had to take care of a friend who tried LSD for the first time who sat in a corner screaming "Get away, Jesus, I don't need you fucking help!" for four hours straight. Still, scary anecdotal stories are no reason why we have essentially banned research since the 60s.

  41. alcahol has no effect when on lsd/shrooms by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    You can drink when high, but you will not feel it, or the lsd effect nullifies it, but when the lsd wears off, then you feel drunk.
    Also because of this, drinking is dangerous to your body, and system in high amounts, yet LSD is safer at the cellular level.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  42. Re:Is this even news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's just a ploy from the anti-drug people.

    After the trial, they can say: We tried LSD on 40 people and they all died.

  43. me to by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    I can confirm that after the last time I took LSD I was DEFINITELY prepared for death. Hence why that was 20 years ago.

  44. Instead of LSD before death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine LSD during death. Like Aldeous Huxley's.

  45. Re:Is this even news? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    have identical effects

    Hard to tell, you can get "identical effects" (vivid visual and auditory hallucinations) simply by forcing yourself to stay awake for more than ~60hrs.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  46. Of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And lobotomy helps as well.

  47. Yes, excess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you haven't been paranoid from too much THC, then you don't know what the parent is talking about. Today's cannabis is a much stronger animal than your father's weed. Especially if you vaporize it.

    1. Re:Yes, excess by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      No it isn't.

      Maybe your dad got shit weed, but full land race sativas are not less potent, they're just nearly impossible to grow indoors, and have exceeding long growing times. Their potency is untouchable though,

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    2. Re:Yes, excess by cusco · · Score: 1

      Shit weed? Just the discarded leaf from today's weed is stronger than the Acapulco Gold bud we used to pay premium prices for back in the '70s. The average no-name bud sold in Seattle now is stronger than the Thai Stick or Maui Wowie used to be.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. LSD.. by strstr · · Score: 2

    If the person can't physically think or feel, and their neurons function are disrupted, they don't and can't particularly feel anything in a controlled way. So of course they will stop worrying about death, and their entire brains will be immobolized and incapable of defense or anything else.

    They used to slip this drug to unwitting victims to turn them into schizophrenics for gods sakes. The CIA also envisioned putting it in water supplies to make the entire populace of a region defenseless, walking around like mindless zombies even at low doses.

    End result: you can give a person a drug that does all sorts of damaging shit, doesn't mean its working therapeutically or right to give a person. Because they're terminal they obviously figure the brain damage wouldn't matter, since they're going to die anyway. Lets slip them into a psychotic episode to control them until they finally pass! Yay, that makes them easier to deal with!

    1. Re:LSD.. by cusco · · Score: 1

      Really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    2. Re:LSD.. by strstr · · Score: 1

      you might not know. but I do.. know. I have studied MKULTRA. I have read the FOIA documents, watched videos, and read over the textual transcripts of each event that went on.

      All this information is available @.. Look at the links right underneath the introductory/header of that section. LSD's interest for governments use, was it's ability to induce schizophrenia and to control people.

      http://oregonstatehospital.net...

    3. Re:LSD.. by strstr · · Score: 1

      I also know about the medical model, and their false perception on reality and treating peoples mental health symptoms like it's a medical problem they can fix with drugs. Even though the drugs don't have an effect to actually cure a person, they continue to use them on society, generally with the effect of brain damaging a persons emotions, thoughts, and other things out of them. This is simply not treatment for any of the things people experience in life, and are being done without disclosing the damaging effects of what's really occurring.

      The people taking LSD, don't even realize that their whole bodies and souls have been damaged, and that is the sole reason for them not experiencing the anxiety and other effects of thinking about their future demise. They took LSD, got high as a mother fucker, hallucinated like crazy on it while their brain grew out of control and into new realms (permenantly altered/damaged brain cells and functions as a result), and now have no ability to even tell they're about to die or not. Their anxiety has been taken out of them, because they no longer feel life or their formers selves. They're essentially fucking wasted idiots, and to these idiot psychiatrists, that's supposed to be therapeutic .. LMFAO.

    4. Re:LSD.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      cusco is right, you really don't know what you're talking about. I'm not an expert on LSD (although I've seen enough anti-drug propaganda to know where you're getting your ideas), but I do know a bit about treatments for mental illness.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:LSD.. by cusco · · Score: 1

      The people taking LSD, don't even realize that their whole bodies and souls have been damaged, and that is the sole reason for them not experiencing the anxiety and other effects of thinking about their future demise. They took LSD, got high as a mother fucker, hallucinated like crazy on it while their brain grew out of control and into new realms (permenantly altered/damaged brain cells and functions as a result), and now have no ability to even tell they're about to die or not.

      Wow. That is so very far from the reality of what was done that we can't even blame it on a crappy summary. From your babbling it's rather obvious that you don't even know anything about what LSD does or how it works. Was that viewpoint generated by the DARE propaganda, or did you come up with that foolishness yourself?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  50. Re:Is this even news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is true, I stayed awake for almost four days during senior project, when I was in college, and I was starting to hallucinate during my presentation.

  51. Re:Is this even news? by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

    some drugs are so wicked and dangerous and illegal that it is necessary to prevent any research

    Psychedelics are dangerous. They are very effective at treating addictions, and modern society is entirely build around all the consumers running on hamster wheels for their next hit. They grant self-awareness, and that just might make the marionette see the strings they dance from. But even more dangerously they might make the puppetmasters realize those same strings also tie the hand that holds them.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  52. Re:Is this even news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It worked on me.

  53. Re:Is this even news? by cusco · · Score: 2, Informative

    I take it you haven't done any of these, since the effects of LSD is **NOT** identical to the effects of psilocybin mushrooms or mescaline-containing cacti. I have done all three, and all three are dramatically different from each other. For that matter, a trip from San Pedro cacti is different than a peyote trip, and a chemically-generated LSD trip is different than a morning glory seed generated LSD trip.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  54. you have a piece of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's already understood that participating in activities that a person thinks are valuable gives that person additional mental resources (think willpower).

    So here we have a volunteer group of dying people who are given the opportunity to advance science, a cause they clearly think is valuable or they wouldn't have volunteered.

    As always in such situations, this helps them come to terms with the immediacy of their fate. They are doing something with their remaining time rather than just lying in bed waiting for a bedpan. They are doing science, which is the religion of many people today (and well respected even by normal people who don't fetishize it as a replacement for spirituality).

    As you say, coming to terms with your inevitable end is a powerful experience. People who do so often wish to devote their remaining hours to what they see as worthwhile efforts, like science research, and one of the few types of science research a bedridden terminal case can do is drug research.

    Live every single day like you will die next Tuesday, and suddenly "World of Warcraft" holds no appeal. You'll want to do meaningful things.

    1. Re:you have a piece of it. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Plenty of people have made peace with their own mortality without contributing their life to a cause.

      And I would argue that living like you'll die tomorrow, as heard by most people, can be the exact opposite of making peace with mortality. It is very often born of overcoming the denial of the inevitability of their own death, but without having accepted the aesthetic necessity of that outcome. Thus bestowing a frantic energy born of suppressed terror as the person rushes to "make the most" of whatever time they have left.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:you have a piece of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of people have made peace with their own mortality without contributing their life to a cause.

      And I would argue that living like you'll die tomorrow, as heard by most people, can be the exact opposite of making peace with mortality. It is very often born of overcoming the denial of the inevitability of their own death, but without having accepted the aesthetic necessity of that outcome. Thus bestowing a frantic energy born of suppressed terror as the person rushes to "make the most" of whatever time they have left.

      Posting anon because blah. No particular cause to flout, but are you suggesting we just give up? If I must die in the next minute, I'm going to try to own/know/feel/live... let's just say "consume" every available moment of this one. It may appear frantic to you, and what it means is for others to say, but if I must utterly die let us agree I should fully live. (I find it interesting how thinking of this has influenced today's schedule, already.) /R

  55. ripping off Bill Mher by s122604 · · Score: 1

    "their friends, family member and colleagues also reported that the psilocybin experience had made the participants calmer, happier and kinder."

    In pharmaceutical parlance, Psilocybin appears to be a potent Assholeimase inhibitor

    1. Re:ripping off Bill Mher by Kingofearth · · Score: 1

      This is why I love Slashdot

  56. Re:Is this even news? by fishybell · · Score: 2

    Morning Glorys don't contain LSD, they contain LSA, which, while being a precursor to LSD, is very different.

    --
    ><));>
  57. green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason why marijuana is considered a mild hallucinogen is because of the paranoia that many people associate with the drug. If someone is paranoid while high on marijuana then this is a type of hallucination.

  58. greem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am going to assume it is somewhat like exposure therapy which is used to overcome phobias. Exposure therapy is when you introduce the fear or in this case trauma to the patient just a little bit and then you gradually increase the exposure until the phobia or trauma is gone. Of course trauma can not technically be gone but the trauma can definitely hold less anxiety.

  59. Re:Is this even news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which one is the most interesting?

  60. Corpsicles-R-Us by Immerman · · Score: 1

    News flash - being frozen will kill you one *hell* of a lot more thoroughly than pretty much anything short of being fed through a meat grinder. In fact on a cellular level the damage will be far greater than that, even if you superficially appear undamaged. Cryogenics technology is still a long way from being able to reliably glassify something much thicker than millimeter-scale, and that's a challenge. Even if they *could* do such a thing, keeping you perpetually cold enough to remain glassified rather than warming to temperatures where ice crystals form and destroy the cells would likely be extremely expensive - burying you under an ice cap just won't be cold enough.

    But hey, if you have no heirs or worthy causes to leave your fortune to, and can't think of anything better to do with while you're still alive, *and* trust the cryogenics company not to just take your money and cremate you once nobody's watching, then knock yourself out. I'm sure many, many centuries from now when medical science has reached the point they can rebuild a body and brain from frozen mush (I'm sure there's *lots* of useful applications for that, right?) they'll just be clamoring to resurrect 20th century cavemen for their museum exhibits. It won't be *you* obviously - they'll have to damn near rebuild the copy from scratch, but it will potentially have your memories and personality if enough neural data still exists in the corspicle's brain.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  61. Re:Is this even news? by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

    They seem to have similar effects, but these things are notoriously hard to study objectively, so anecdotal evidence is not enough to establish that they have identical effects (and it would be really weird if they did. How should such different molecules get identical pharmacokinetics and pharmarkodynamics?).

    Because the "such different molecules" actually have very similar shapes and active sites and thus very similar/identical mechanisms of action - just as with all the other drug classes (peptidoglycan synthesis inhibiting antibiotics, COX inhibiting anti-inflammatories, etc.).

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  62. Re:Is this even news? by cusco · · Score: 1

    Depends on the context. Where I am, what I am doing, where my head is. Mushrooms for walking in the Pacific Northwest rain forest, morning glory seeds hiking in the Andean altiplano or playing in our garden, LSD when staying indoors, San Pedro at Lake Titicaca or visiting pre-Colombian ruins, etc.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  63. There are alternatives by charlesj68 · · Score: 1

    felt 'significant reductions in anxiety' about their lives ending."

    A similar result to that experienced by many adults upon listening to Justin Bieber music.

  64. LSD Study? WTF? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Ok, when did that become permitted again? last i heard it was still a 'scheduled drug' and even research was banned.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  65. Fuck the dea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dea is in violation of human rights!!! I come home from war a vet and am directly at ods with the dea the war on drugs is a war agents humanity!!!!!! The dea must stop this nonsense !!!! I want the head of the dea in jail!!!!! That's were these crooks and cons belong!!!! If I have any pull left in the d.o.d. I order the arrest of the office of the dea!

  66. Re:Is this even news? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Exactly what I was thinking. I've known too many suicides in my life on bad trips, from the "I can fly off a 20 story building" to the "I'm superman and I can stop a train" to not know that LSD affects the instinct for survival.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  67. Re:Is this even news? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    First *concentration* was 1938.

    Morning glories did not evolve overnight in 1938, nor apricot seeds, nor any of the other plants this drug can be concentrated from.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  68. great for prospective heirs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't wait to pull the plug on Grandma? Give her some LSD and have her sign the euthanasia form.

  69. Re:Is this even news? by mmell · · Score: 2
    I believe d-lysergic acid diethylamide is, in fact, naturally occuring - a metabolite of the ergot Claviceps Purpea (a wheat blight) if memory serves. I'd previously understood it to have come out of insecticide research, but I'm unable to find any references to support this and so I'm probably wrong here.

    And - just a note - I'm prepared to assert with confidence that LSD is not identical to Psilocybin, Mescaline, DMT or any other hallucinogenic materials. Ask users of these substances and they'll tell you - they cause very different experiences, both during the "high" and the subsequent hangover ("crash", "come-off", etc.).

  70. I've seen those studies published in Scientific Am by mmell · · Score: 1
    Back in the seventies. The "hallucinations" are caused by a drop in blood pressure to the brain (affecting the visual cortex), along with a similar drop at the eye itself. There is a clear physiological cause, and the hallucinations generally take the form of a bluish spiral or kaleidoscopic pattern - not "spiders under the skin" or "trails" or "walls melting". Further, subjects were always fully aware that their visual perceptions had no founding in the real world - i.e., they were unlikely to shoot a perceived monster only to discover later that it was a friend.

    Incidentally, when you're high enough on pot to see these things, you need to put the bong down. You're just wasting weed at this point (IMHO).

  71. Just don't thump the book of G'Quan. by mmell · · Score: 1

    It's disrespectful.

  72. Re:Is this even news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is there a generally safe way to get these things and be reasonably sure they are what they should be?

  73. Re:Is this even news? by cusco · · Score: 1

    LSD, no. Morning glory seeds used to be coated with a little strychnine to prevent the plants from self-fertilizing and producing viable seeds, but that's not done any more. To be just a little paranoid you could buy organic morning glory seeds and avoid the issue altogether. Grind them up and mix them with something like peach juice, or let the powder sit in water (or wine) overnight and drink the water. Psilocybin mushrooms grow wild all over the place if you know how to recognize mushrooms. San Pedro is available from any herbalist in any market in Peru/Bolivia/Ecuador. There are several ways to prepare it but don't use the core, there's no mescaline there and it will upset your stomach. Peyote will make you puke no matter what, I've only done it once and don't know how to recognize it anyway.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  74. Captain obvious says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Breathing makes you FEEL better! Drinking water makes you less-thirsty! Using mind-altering drugs suppresses pain and makes you care about things less.

    Oh, and there MUST have been taxpayer dollars involved in funding this study... of course, Nancy Pelosi insists that there is NOTHING left to cut in the US budget... "the cupboard's BARE" she says... (oh and if there's no American tax dollars involdes, then there are probably Canadian or English, etc tax dollars... private companies just tend to have better uses for their money...)

  75. N.B. the insights of the Dalai Lama on this issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LSD's insights may be illusory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnQr2AqVpIU

    and this may actually get in the way of dealing with the problem directly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yLdUE1VTl4

    Having said that if you only have a year or less to prepare then perhaps a chemical accelerant needs to be applied to the process. Better to start thinking about life and death when you are young and healthy.

  76. Re:Yes! I'm so glad someone said it. by voxel · · Score: 1

    Yes brother, this is the way it is. We are all one, and in oneness, two-ness must be illusion. Death is the ego's most prized possession in creating fear about what will ultimately be viewed as a non-event, thus destroying ones peace during their time here.

    Nothing is ever lost, with oneness, there is no where to lose it to, hence too, you will never die.

    --
    Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
  77. Re:Is this even news? by sFurbo · · Score: 1

    But they will have different physico-chemical properties (polarity etc.) and different reactivities, so they will have different pharmacokinetics and different pharmacodynamics. This is a good thing, because it means that the treatment can (to some degree) be tailor-made to the problem, but it means that talking about "identical" effects of different compounds is close to being meaningless.

  78. Re:Is this even news? by K10W · · Score: 1

    This is really ancient knowledge. Did science just get hep? Great.

    It's more about science getting approval. LSD is one of those compounds that is next to impossible for researchers to get access to and test in humans. For reasons I don't care enough about keeping kids off drugs or something to fully understand, some drugs are so wicked and dangerous and illegal that it is necessary to prevent any research (even about how dangerous they are; but definitely nothing suggesting that they aren't as dangerous as previously believed), even under hardass conditions, on terminal patients, and so forth. As quoth noted toxicologist and psycho-pharmacologist Jacqui Smith: "You cannot compare the harms of an illegal activity with a legal one." Why? Because one is illegal, of course! I wouldn't really call this 'ancient knowledge' (if the first synthesis was in 1938, it probably isn't shamanic lore); but it was certainly an active area of scientific interest pre-ban. That somebody would want another crack at it isn't even remotely news. That they managed to fill out the paperwork, on the other hand...

    so true, been waiting for this for a while as it's been on the potential high therapeutic benefit list for some time, Tim "f**king" Leary as well as the ott governmental policies wipe so many promising agents off the potential breakthrough research lists. MDMA is coming into it's own with the fruition of trials for successful treatment of battle induced PTSD where not much else worked.

    I remember surprise as a youngster what we could order from the suppliers no problems never mind what we could make, and yet so many things much less damaging including LSD placed in the restricted section of our labs catalogue required soooo much paperwork you'd never get it approved it'd never happen for human use

  79. Re:Is this even news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do not have identical effects. Not even close. Even the Tryptamines (DMT and Psilocybin, for example) have vastly different effects from each other. You can really only generalize the effects of the two major classes of psychedelics - tryptamines are intellectual and phenethylamines are emotional. Beyond that, each chemical is unique.