Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley Avant-garde Have Turned To LSD in a Bid To Increase Their Productivity (1843magazine.com)
Every three days Nathan (not his real name), a 27-year-old venture capitalist in San Francisco, ingests 15 micrograms of lysergic acid diethylamide (commonly known as LSD or acid). From a story on 1843 Magazine: From the start, a small but significant crossover existed between those who were experimenting with drugs and the burgeoning tech community in San Francisco. "There were a group of engineers who believed there was a causal connection between creativity and LSD," recalls John Markoff, whose 2005 book, "What the Dormouse Said", traces the development of the personal-computer industry through 1960s counterculture. At one research centre in Menlo Park over 350 people -- particularly scientists, engineers and architects -- took part in experiments with psychedelics to see how the drugs affected their work. Tim Scully, a mathematician who, with the chemist Nick Sand, produced 3.6m tabs of LSD in the 1960s, worked at a computer company after being released from his ten-year prison sentence for supplying drugs. "Working in tech, it was more of a plus than a minus that I worked with LSD," he says. No one would turn up to work stoned or high but "people in technology, a lot of them, understood that psychedelics are an extremely good way of teaching you how to think outside the box." San Francisco appears to be at the epicentre of the new trend, just as it was during the original craze five decades ago. Tim Ferriss, an angel investor and author, claimed in 2015 in an interview with CNN that "the billionaires I know, almost without exception, use hallucinogens on a regular basis." Few billionaires are as open about their usage as Ferriss suggests. Steve Jobs was an exception: he spoke frequently about how "taking LSD was a profound experience, one of the most important things in my life." In Walter Isaacson's 2011 biography, the Apple CEO is quoted as joking that Microsoft would be a more original company if Bill Gates, its founder, had experienced psychedelics. As Silicon Valley is a place full of people whose most fervent desire is to be Steve Jobs, individuals are gradually opening up about their usage -- or talking about trying LSD for the first time.
Is the use of tools and technology not the key motivation behind human evolution?
Psychoactive drugs can be tools, and are most definitely technology.
Last I checked, it's still a Schedule-I narcotic which makes it unobtainable even with a prescription. What more does our anti-drug leaders need? It's a confession made free and clear in a news article. That should be more than sufficient grounds for a search warrant for house, car, and office.
"So how many hits did it take ..."
The world may never know.
I don't know about LSD, but Eric Raymond makes a plausible case for modafinil.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
If you need them, you are doing something wrong somewhere.
Nobody needs LSD. But, some people believe that their quality of life improves with occasional use. Use of LSD can absolutely be a spiritual experience. Who are you to decide that what people are doing is right/wrong?
If you are claiming they are "okay" or "needed" for "work", you are a disgusting person.
Tell us what you really think! We're all dying for your approval.
Disclaimer: I haven't dropped acid in over 15 years.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
1) This isn't new. Creative people have been doing this since the discover of drugs. It's a common trope of the drugged out artist. Tech people have always had more in common with artists than businessmen, so it's no surprise that techs prefer the artistic drugs over the businessman's drug (cocaine).
2) It doesn't work the way people think it does. You are not more creative under the influence of drugs, you are actually less creative. But you stop asking yourself "Is this a good idea?" and just do it. It's basically brainstorming for one person. They also make you stop worrying about outside distractions (failure, your marriage, etc.)
Drugs do not add anything to your mental capacity. Anything you do under the influence is something you could have done anyway without it, as long as you did not let your own personal demons get in the way.
But some people are ruled by their personal demons, so they do better work on the drug than off. Sad really.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
May also explain "systemd" ;-)
Indeed, high people are usually not good at weighing complex practical trade-offs. How a green spider reacts to a given UI is usually moot because green spiders are not the target audience.
Perhaps the trips are to generate raw ideas to be evaluated later while sober, but too many trips could mess up your sober thinking also. For example, perhaps S. Jobs would not have been stupid enough to postpone visiting a cancer doctor, and still be alive today if he didn't fry his brain.
Table-ized A.I.
Didn't mass adoption of caffeine help spur on the Age of Enlightenment.
bs is not confined to "startups and the idiots who fund them", most of the big techs are throwing away money at developing all sorts of non core products, they have no knowledge about, and then killing almost all these project after year or two. all the while their core competencies denerate.
google/alphabet is the prime example. it has acquired and wasted money on lots of projects, in all sort of areas, and then killed them impatiently. meanwhile google search results are getting worse(and i don't think their political bias is the main cause for that). search in youtube,(not for some general popular search, but for something specific involving their filters) is almost completely useless now. it was much better year ago.
At to the main point, no. Acid doesn't give you 'profound' thoughts. It lowers the standard for 'profound' until stupid ideas seem profound to you. Write your profound insights down, so you won't forget, read them when you're sober. You'll just shake your head.
Can confirm. Experienced transcendental levels of profundity after hours of in-depth conversation. A group of us were convinced that we had obtained some new level of understanding which we had all managed to forget somehow.
A portable cassette recorder was obtained for the next session, and a recording made.
Upon playback, 4 fools were heard laughing and talking over each other saying "Yes! That's it! It *all* makes sense." Absolutely nothing profound was discovered.
While they're on it, agreed, most people are somewhere between pretty silly and slightly incoherent. However, in the days and week after, I think there can be some genuine carry-over effects on mindset and creativity levels. That same kind of carryover could also probably be accomplished by a long vacation, a creative bootcamp, a vision quest, an intense religious experience, and a bunch of other things, but this is one of many ways to shake things up and search for other perspectives. I'd like to see some studies before claiming with confidence it's a sure thing, or to what extent it's effective, but it's at least mildly plausible that there's some potential benefit.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Microdosing isn't the same thing as getting high or tripping. You might barely notice the effects of 15 micrograms of LSD (1/10 the normal "tripping" dose) the first time you did it. But not the second time, three days later. If you've done some science showing a causal link between LSD and brain cancer, you should publish. It would be a first.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
As opposed to promoting other licit drugs?
I don't get why some people have a moral bee in their bonnet about this kind of thing.
If its bogus, then these so-called creative types do worse, fail at their jobs and people not invested in the idea of taking LSD do better and replace them.
If its not bogus, then maybe they do better at their jobs and the only real outrage is we all don't have access to micro doses of LSD.
In either case, the argument for moral outrage doesn't seem to accomplish much. If LSD is hokum, then their failure is your moral justice. If they're right, though, your moral outrage isn't justified at all -- you're basically arguing people shouldn't take LSD because it's beneficial.
My guess is like most things, the truth is in the middle. Some people get some minor benefit and some people get some minor detraction from the experience, but power and authority being what they are, these same people get to decide what's success and what's failure, and they just define it as success.
If you want to be outraged about something, be outraged at that -- that people who do the judging are also the ones that judge themselves and set the standard, too.
The article summary says it right there -- everyone in startup land is trying to be Steve Jobs. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos fame even wears black turtlenecks to try to complete the look.
It's just the personality version of cargo-culting. Plenty of business types do this but most don't have the degree of success they think they will:
- Tons of people try for the Jobs personality, or the Linus Torvalds personality, etc. Most end up only picking up the mannerisms and not the intelligence part. (Linus acts like a jerk, but he's usually correct and doesn't seem capable of being nice about it.)
- Go into any airport bookstore and look over any of the books aimed at MBA types. Since most of the customers are consultants, it's a pretty easy predictor of what "brilliant innovative groundbreaking paradigm shifts" will be tried at their customers -- and subsequently by tons of others.
- Similarly, any executive who starts using other executives' direct quotes is definitely wishing for similar success. My favorite of late, which I've heard come out of tons of "thought leaders" is the "2 pizza team" concept that Jeff Bezos talked about when he referred to keeping product groups small enough to feed with 2 pizzas.
If it requires taking LSD, they'll do that too. It's just a bunch of MBA weenies emulating their heroes.
You do realize that we already use copious amounts of drugs to "perform" in everyday society right? Caffeine, sugar, alcohol, nicotine, the list goes on and on. I find it equal parts amusing and disturbing when people harp on about drug users while sitting next to a pile of Monster drink cans or a week after they went balistic beacause the coffee ran out in the break room.
150 mics? Lightweight.
When I was a kid, acid was 250 mics minimum or we wanted our dollar back. We rarely did only one.
Before my time, but I understand the average dose in hippie days was 1 milligram. No wonder they bought into so much bullshit.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Disclaimer: I haven't dropped acid in over 15 years.
And you are proud of advertising that?
Not advertising. Disclaiming. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of trying psychedelics in college. Why should I be?
Drugs are "Spiritual"?
I didn't say "drugs" in general. I said LSD can be. The experience differs based on many circumstances and the determination on whether the experience was "spiritual" is entirely up to the user.
Sorry, but you are doing the same thing as TFA. Glorifying drugs!
Not all drugs are worthless. Not every drug experience is negative. Is that glorifying? I think it's just truth.
Will you next claim how I'm just a prude for being against drunk driving?
Nobody said anything like that. Obvious strawman is obvious.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I'm sorry, but you just come off as kinda silly, uptight and naive. The reason your moral high ground feels so hard to cling to is because you don't actually have any.
Breakfast served all day!
Not really. What explains that is the psychology of gain. The anticipation of making a killing is, literally, mind altering.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Back in my younger days, I played guitar in a band for a while, and hung out with a group that liked to experiment a bit with psychedelics.
My recollection of LSD was it felt like "shorting out your brain". Your sense of touch would become all mis-translated, so for example? The sensations you normally block out as irrelevant (like the feeling of the back of your leg pressing against the seat of the chair you're sitting in) all became "significant". You might have the "wires are crossed in my head" experience where you think you can see sounds you're hearing. Visual perceptions became distorted. You might see someone's face "morph" before your eyes into something out of a horror movie, or a room you're in might suddenly seem like it had really high ceilings, or the walls might feel like they're starting to close in on you. The often talked about "bad trip" was really nothing more than a typical LCD trip where your fears and paranoia became the topics of all of these illusions. (And since LSD takes many hours to wear off, it's easily possible to go from having a great experience to having a bad one, prompted by some random experience that reminds you of something unpleasant.)
I can understand how some people equate it with a "spiritual experience", but looking back on those trips -- I'd say that's just your mind playing tricks on you while tripping. It's easy to get grandiose ideas, like you "discovered something about God and creation" -- only to realize it was nonsense and incomplete thoughts later.
I really do think there may be something to the idea that musicians can create music that's more appealing to people doing drugs when they do the drugs themselves while composing it. (In particular, I remember listening to old Moody Blues albums while tripping and finding them way more enjoyable than I did any other time.) But that's not because the drugs unlocked some part of their brain or made them "more creative" than they were before. Its just that music is an expression of how a person feels, if it's done "from the heart" (and not just manufactured to try to sell it for a specific purpose). If you're really angry, you can write better heavy metal or angst-ridden rock. If you're tripping, you can write better psychedelic music.
But it's not a substitute for effort.
Researchers who've studied creativity define it as an unusual and appropriate solution to a problem. It's easy to get unusual with drugs, but appropriate is more of a challenge.
Creativity presupposes an unsually deep understanding of a problem domain. That's why your weird doodles aren't worth as much as Picasso's. He could do representational art if he wanted to. He drew this when he was twelve years old.
Now in my experience moments of creative inspiration come after you struggle with a problem for a long time, and you've exhausted all the conventional approaches to it. But because inspiration only comes after a struggle doesn't mean it always comes.
In particular you can be derailed by certain distractions. Fear of failure is one. A little bit of fear is healthy, but if you're ruminating about what comes after failure you're off-task. And another thing that takes your brain off-task is wanting to appear creative.
So I wouldn't be surprised if someone who'd put in the blood sweat and tears but wasn't letting his brain get on with the job might benefit from a little chemical help. But I'd be amazed if someone could waltz into an unfamiliar situation, pop a pill, and know what to do.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Caffeine, sugar, alcohol, nicotine, the list goes on and on.
Sugar is not a drug.
Alcohol is awful for society, as is nicotine.
Caffeine is mostly innocuous, and often mostly pointless. Once you become a regular caffeine user, you depend on it to get to your normal. People who drink x cups of coffee daily perform the same as people who don't drink coffee (or otherwise consume large amounts of caffeine).
Read the article. It does a much better job of explaining why people think microdosing is good for creativity than I could.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This account suggests different.
"while the news was not good, the upside was that the form of pancreatic cancer from which Jobs suffered (a neuroendocrine islet tumor) was one of the 5% or so that are slow growing and most likely to be cured. But Jobs refused surgery after diagnosis and for nine months after, favoring instead dietary treatments and other alternative methods."
Table-ized A.I.
Why not use the ACTUAL definition of the word instead of a synonym which seems to be an attempt to discount my position? Because the actual definition backs my position?
Spiritual
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal spiritual needs
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters spiritual songs
b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal spiritual authority lords spiritual
3: concerned with religious values
4: related or joined in spirit our spiritual home his spiritual heir
5a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I like my coffee, but the answer to your question is that it's hard to say because around the same time, clean drinking water/better sanitation practices also became available en masse in the major cities, reducing the need for people to drink beer instead of water. Factories and scientific research tend to run better when everyone isn't a little buzzed.
I've seen so many of these microdosing of LSD articles that I can't keep the fresh bullshit from the stale bullshit, but I'm mostly convinced that nobody has said its *necessary*, just that they felt it was "useful" for lack of a better word.
About the closest I've seen to someone advocating for it as a beneficial *therapy* was a severe depression sufferer who didn't get relief from the usual anti-depression drugs.
In the case of computer-type office work, I think most of this whole microdosing thing (and I'd throw in ADHD with it, too, for the most part) is that we've organized and rationalized work to about the general functional limits of human productivity. We're just not well made for sitting in cubicles doing highly focused tasks 50 hours a week, which is probably more like 100 hours a week if you add in off-work screen time. People are either not doing the work well, or they're getting it done but losing themselves to stress, depression and anxiety.
At least with microdoses of LSD they're not using something that's likely to be too likely to turn into a long term problem like amphetamines or opioids, at least for the usual definitions of microdoses I've seen used (just below perceptible side effects).
Claiming that certain drugs are okay because they "may" be Spiritual would be like saying loads of other extremely dangerous experiences are okay because they "may" be "Spiritual".
Most drugs are "ok".
Society/laws that outlaw them makes them not ok, unreasonable expensive, only available via criminal sources, polluted by substances to thin them out (and you can not go to the police and accuse your pusher "oh, he sold me 100% pure stuff, but it was not only just 45% but also contaminated with baby butt powder"), requiring you to become a half criminal as well, to acquire them, either because of black market or money issues or addiction, wich you probably would not have if you simply could get a nice shot every weekend from your pharmacy.
Sorry, but if you have no clue about drugs then stay out of the discussion.
Disclaimer: except alcohol and canabis I did not use drugs. But I don't know a single person that did not try LSD, mushrooms, Heroine or Cocaine. Well, now while I type this, I think I know one person who did not, perhaps two.
And guess what: none of them is an addictive drug abuser.
The idea about drugs in the US or mainstream european politics are just absolutely absurd.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It's just tricky to stay on the Ballmer peak.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Thank you for the definition. It sounds like an LSD trip has the potential to be "spiritual" on all 5 counts. 5a's contestable.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Well, at the latest, everyone should have realized that by 1994 when the IBM Simon came out. ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
No I don't think so. The modern age of coffee-fueled offices is entirely a product of Maxwell House's 1950s advertising with the slogan, "Take a coffee break." I kid you not. The modern "coffee break" is the result of an ad campaign. It was successful beyond anyone's wildest dreams.
Before that time, coffee was only consumed in the home, probably at breakfast and after supper. And if you go back even farther, coffee wasn't really a part of American households until after World War I when returning veterans bought back a taste for it, having had it in their rations.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/undert...
Tommy John surgery used to be for injuries to pitchers. It has been glorified and normalized so that many very young kids are getting the surgery, often causing long term permanent injury and disability. You don't see a problem with popular web pages posting articles with claims "Tommy Johns surgery makes you a better pitcher, and everyone is doing it"? You really don't believe that this impacts young athletes? Parents even thinking they need to push their young adult/teen just a bit further and promote the surgery?
The damages from drugs are often similar to bad surgery, with permanent life long impact. Not every time, and not every case, but a measurable enough percentage where we have made the drug illegal.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It was clear from context the gp meant "legally unobtainable". And as such the gp is right, baring scientific research (and even then good luck with the paperwork and security requirement) you cannot obtain LSD legally. Why you were modded insightful when the context is clear is beyond me.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
As the fortune file told me: Berkeley is famous for two things, LSD and UNIX. There might be a reason for this.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
One thing that did seem semi-legitimate was wandering campus for hours and discovering interesting quirks of campus architecture.
The stupid concrete amphitheater built in the early 1970s that nobody ever used? As it turns out, it's a pretty perfect parabola and produces some interesting audio effects if you stand at the focus.
There were other bits about campus buildings we had never noticed despite being in or around these buildings every day for classes.
I do think there's something in there about having the experience of transcendental enlightenment, even if the subject matter is silly. For the group of people I hung out with, it was often tied to something one of us had in a class, so I think having an emotional connection to ideas added something to the experience.
Without proper study, what makes it any less likely that not using LSD is harmful to the human brain? There are certainly individuals who suffered from wide ranges of cognitive issues, without ever ingesting LSD, and eventually expired as a direct/indirect result; how do we know the introduction of LSD couldn't have limited, slowed, or even prevented some of these cases? As insane as this sounds to the average person, it's actually more plausible than what you are proposing and there is much less evidence available to support your position. People who live near giraffes are more likely to be killed by a lion than people who live near penguins. People who live near penguins freeze to death at a higher rate than people who live near giraffes get attacked by lions. I like cheese - is that information important at any level? I don't understand the general resistance average people have to certain categories of experiences. Also, it's frustrating to see the process and/or data average people use to draw conclusions or make decisions. We are all equipped with capable hardware... but rampant operator error will result in human extinction long before any real potential will be recognized. I think somebody forgot to press the reboot button on this particular simulation... but I'm enjoying it while it lasts.
If you have a real IT job then you don't get drug tested, and certainly not at random. Insurance might compel one for certain types of accidents (that aren't common to keyboard jockeys) but that's about it. Also, to a first approximation they only test for cannabis use: most other drugs are consumed in pretty small quantities and don't leave many lingering metabolites, and this is most true for LSD, which is one of the most potent psychoactive substances known.
Other people's drug habits are terrible; only the ones I use are okay.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Ah brilliant. I suppose we're talking about the minimal decades of testing of people trying to kill themselves with psychedelics and failing miserably, as compared to alcohol, which very easily creates miserable people on the way to liver damage, or things like Tylenol and SSRIs which will kill you or put you into opioid-like withdrawal.
I do not like to consume alcohol. Marijuana (ingested) and LSD are on the menu, however. I'm sure it's ridiculous to you that I would use some critical thinking skills to consider the danger of something that has significant corporate interest in it not being considered harmful (health-wise, and especially behaviorally) and decide to use generally illicit (I live in colorado) substances instead.
I guarantee you people who don't know how to take it easy on alcohol are far more plentiful and FAR more destructive.
And if you go back even farther, coffee wasn't really a part of American households until after World War I when returning veterans bought back a taste for it, having had it in their rations.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/undert...
Sounds like coffee took off in the US at the same time that it industrialized (like tea in Britain). Caffeine is quite useful when your life revolves around a clock. Not so much when you're a farmer who rises and rests with the sun.
Remember that in WWII, something like 70% of the population still lived on farms. Now it's less than 10%. Take a trip through Kansas and you'll see plenty of 4/5ths abandoned towns that were full in the 40's and 50's.
The government might think differently than you when it comes to the effects of LSD on creativity.
Take a look here, try the results section:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Now, the people in this test weren't your average every day fucktards, like most of us who frequent this site, so their results may be different than mine or yours. Also, the circumstances of the test were different than the normal dosing regimen for people consuming LSD. There were no lava lamps or loose women, no long haired psychonaut vererans, certainly no LED impregnated gloves, and house music hadn't been invented yet. Without those distractions interfering who knows what someone could do with a cortex full of lysergic acid? Well, apparently the government scientists who performed this test.
Also many people who dabble are at the effect of the drug. Their minds are particularly malleable while under the influence of LSD. It is entirely possible the implied circumstantial expectation of enhanced performance could have led to the results. An interesting aside, I would be curious to see how someone who has learned that LSD is a tool to be used, rather than an all powerful master, would perform under similar clinical conditions.
Lastly, due to the stigma attached to psychedelic drugs, not to mention the stiff as fuck federal penalties, I would not be surprised if many things we attribute to ingenuity and hard work are actually the result of driven people who aren't afraid to push their own boundaries with these substances.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
somewhat funny ... i fear an Acid-trip is highly personal, after all it rewires the brain and lets say the brain is highly personal. I'm not sure (and i loathe to use the word but to keep it simple) ordinary people can turn into extra-ordinary (or ab-normal as Salvador Dali would say it) people by dropping acid. It will give way to introspection ofcourse but how that gets interpreted is probably more difficult than explaining the meaning of dreams.
Well known boast that steve jobs did and said he wouldnt be who he was without it but lets face the fact that Jobs was already outside the norm to keep it statistical before he dropped that drop or paper whatever it is people use these days.
Imagination is limited by the self, ergo an acid trip will be limited to what is already in your world. I myself have seen actual stuff like a whole bar full of people partying when i was on a 'trip' with my girlfriend, craving for cigarettes stood there at the door, no one opened , just to turn back around to see it was closed. We both saw that, that is more than eerie ... several things, walking through a street with the rooftops bending as if it were a cartoon, being able to "touch" the top of the belfry tower of the church, my cat as big as a pig hovering above my head, i was jimi hendricks in the mirror and at one stage i wanted to 'float down the stairs' which my gf (luckily) prevented ... but thats just one trip and there was way more than that. The effects lasted for about 24 hours on just 8mm, it was called "double bart" or "bart simpson overdose" ... i DID feel the need to try and describe it afterwards but just like a dream it more or less faded. Wether it changed me ? i have never been normal
its hard to say, but i don't believe it can turn people into einsteins or dalis if they dont already have the weird-gene
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
You have no basis for comparison.
You know of all my personal experiences and knowledge how exactly? Simple answer: You don't. Your claim of intellectual high ground is based on an appeal to a non-existent authority.
Contrary to how they are often depicted, drugs are typically pretty boring.
Your assumption seems to be that the only reason people do drugs is for entertainment. Which is a complete bullshit argument with little basis in reality. People use drugs for reasons like depression from any number of causes, wanting to fit in to any number of circumstances, and from peer pressure (resulting from statements like TFA claims where "everyone is doing it but nobody admits it", and "you are a better person when using LSD"
LSD is not necessarily much more inebriating than alcohol, and you're pretty unlikely to get any open-eye visual hallucinations. There are other drugs that are better for that, but LSD is really just a cheap feeling of enlightenment.
Comparing LSD to alcohol ignores the effects of both drugs on a human. LSD has been known to cause suicides, persistent psychological problems like paranoia and neurotic behavior, and since the body has a hard time processing LSD out of the system echos are a big problem. But hey, you are the person who claimed the intellectual high ground, why don't you bring any of those up?
That's not what confirmation bias is, as well. I understand that much of your worldview is predicated on your inability to distinguish logical fallacies from empirical fallacies, but you're really being aggressively stupid today.
The person who refuses to even acknowledge well documented science regarding the impact of drugs in general, in addition to the drug in question, and citing personal anecdotes which agree with their opinion is _EXACTLY_ what confirmation bias is. My world view is based on facts, which you are simply ignoring. Why not perform a basic web search for "negative effects of LSD" as a start.
More importantly, tell me how glorifying and normalizing the drugs is _not_ harmful for society? We know that it is, and cigarettes and alcohol are two very easy examples. That was my position and point from the start, which you simply ignore repeatedly. You doing drugs is not the same thing as you publishing an article noting 0 negative effects from LSD, claiming "everyone does it", and claiming "you need it to be successful". That type of article targets the weakest in society and pushes them toward usage. It's not neutral in any way shape or form.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.