panacea wrote:It wasn't my argument. My argument was that your argument is against public opinion AND has no evidence backing it up.
And I answered you that a)the fact that it is against public opinion is not an argument in itself and b)I have backed up everything I have written. Please show me an example of exactly what claims are that are not backed up. Here is my list of claims (again):
-People generally do not die or get serious injuries from psychedelics
-Most people who take psychedelics do not have any lasting negative effect
-Psychedelics are not addictive
-Psychedelics are not considered a "gateway drug"
panacea wrote:This is because the dangers of LSD are not directly physical, but psychological (which can lead to secondary physical harm, by injuring yourself for example during altered perception/mood). How utterly convenient of you to leave this out when it's in your own source.
I did not "skip the negative". I found a reference for my claim; that LSD (and psychedelics in general) are not very toxic and does not kill you by overdosing. My other claims, I found other references for.
panacea wrote:
"LSD may temporarily impair the ability to make sensible judgments and understand common dangers, thus making the user more susceptible to accidents and personal injury.
Yes, it MAY. Yet very few people actually DO hurt themselves or others while on LSD. Who cares what theoreticly might happen if it never or extremely seldom does?
panacea wrote:
Adverse drug interactions
There is some indication that LSD may trigger a dissociative fugue state in individuals who are taking certain classes of antidepressants such as lithium salts and tricyclics. In such a state, the user has an impulse to wander, and may not be aware of his or her actions, which can lead to physical injury. Anonymous anecdotal reports have attributed seizures and one death to the combination of LSD with lithium.[50] SSRIs noticeably reduce LSD's subjective effects.[51] MAOIs are also reported to reduce the effects of LSD.[50] .
How is this even remotely relevant? Most drugs, even the least harmful ones, can be lethal in combinations with certain other drugs, or even foods. Try eating a lot of banana while taking on a large dose of MAOIs, for example. This does not mean that either MAOIs or bananas are dangerous when used correctly (separately).
panacea wrote:
Mental disorders
LSD may trigger panic attacks or feelings of extreme anxiety, colloquially referred to as a "bad trip". No real prolonged effects have been proven, however people with such conditions as schizophrenia and depression can worsen with LSD.[52]
Have I ever said LSD was safe to use for those severely mentally ill? I don’t think so.
panacea wrote:
Psychosis
There are some cases of LSD inducing a psychosis in people who appeared to be healthy before taking LSD.[56] In most cases, the psychosis-like reaction is of short duration, but in other cases it may be chronic. It is difficult to determine whether LSD itself induces these reactions or if it triggers latent conditions that would have manifested themselves otherwise. The similarities of time course and outcomes between putatively LSD-precipitated and other psychoses suggest that the two types of syndromes are not different and that LSD may have been a nonspecific trigger.[citation needed]
Estimates of the prevalence of LSD-induced prolonged psychosis lasting over 48 hours have been made by surveying researchers and therapists who had administered LSD:
Cohen (1960) estimated 0.8 per 1,000 volunteers (the single case among approximately 1250 study volunteers was the identical twin of a schizophrenic and he recovered within 5 days) and 1.8 per 1,000 psychiatric patients (7 cases among approximately 3850 patients, of which 2 cases were "preschizophrenic" or had previous hallucinatory experience, 1 case had unknown outcome, 1 case had incomplete recovery, and 5 cases recovered within up to 6 months).[57]
Malleson (1971) reported no cases of psychosis among experimental subjects (170 volunteers who received a total of 450 LSD sessions) and estimated 9 per 1,000 among psychiatric patients (37 cases among 4300 patients, of which 8 details are unknown, 10 appeared chronic, and 19 recovered completely within up to 3 months).[27]
However, in neither survey study was it possible to compare the rate of lasting psychosis in these volunteers and patients receiving LSD with the rate of psychosis found in other groups of research volunteers or in other methods of psychiatric treatment (for example, those receiving placebo).
Have you even read this? It says that LSD might produce/trigger a psychosis-like state in very few of the people who take it and that most of these few people recover. How is that different from what I have been saying all the time? Of course there are risks, but they are far less serious than most people, including you, seems to believe.
panacea wrote:
Cohen (1960) noted:[57]
"The hallucinogenic experience is so striking that many subsequent disturbances may be attributed to it without further justification. The highly suggestible or hysterical individual would tend to focus on his LSD experience to explain subsequent illness. Patients have complained to Abramson that their LSD exposure produced migraine headaches and attacks of influenza up to a year later. One Chinese girl became paraplegic and ascribed that catastrophe to LSD. It so happened that these people were all in the control group and had received nothing but tap water."
This speaks for itself
panacea wrote:
All of your claims are not even close to being backed in full by references. Rather you make wild, biased claims then listed references for DIFFERENT claims below them. For example you had references for there not being any documented deaths with LSD, and that it's not known for causing physical harm, this is a totally different argument than the fact that LSD can cause harm because under the influence of the drug your perception is altered and are therefore more likely to injure yourself.
I did not make conflicting claims. Let me repeat myself (again); psychedelics alter your perception, and one can therefore argue that using them can increase the likelihood of having an accident. Yet very few accidents like these occur. Also, they can easily be avoided by not partaking in dangerous activities while using LSD or any other psychedelic.
panacea wrote:
Saying something is "safe" because it doesn't harm you using method A while it can and does harm you using method B is absolutely ridiculous and again, extremely biased and irresponsible.
I never said it was safe, I said it was less risky than most people seems to think. Also, method B is in this case hypothetical, and does not seem to actually happen a lot. Still, I would not go as far as call it safe, but definitely less dangerous than the public thinks.
panacea wrote:LOL. You just said all your claims are backed up by references, yet your own references say that normal use CAN CAUSE lasting psychological effects! What a biased and untrustworthy claim! It's outright lying what you are doing.
I never said LSD cannot cause lasting negative effect. I said it USUALLY DOES NOT (and backed it up with references). Read my posts before you accuse me of lying.
panacea wrote:
Actually, it's the hidden dangers of these type of drugs that worry me the most. You seem to be fascinated with pointing out how great and safe these drugs are but I can see the bigger picture, because whether you like it or not the definition of a gateway drug was used properly in my previous post:
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ ... e&ie=UTF-8
habit-forming drug that is not addictive but its use may lead to the use of other addictive drugs;
Taking drugs, especially for the first time, is a lifestyle choice, especially when it's illegal, which makes the drug user more likely and comfortable in most cases with doing it again. Since you claim that LSD is not physically addictive in itself, and have just outlined how you had 'discovered' you were being fooled and how great that drugs are after you tried them, it's a perfect example of LSD opening the gates of your mind to 'experiment'.
I never tried LSD (see, preassumptions), and found out that the dangers of drugs in general, and psychedelics especially, are not what the public believe them to be a long time before I tried any illegal drug (not that I have tried many). Fine, another source on the web states a looser definition of the term gateway drug, but my argument still stands; psychedelics are not usually considered gateway drugs. I fail to see the hidden dangers that you are so afraid of.
panacea wrote:
(...)just because there are no documented physical effects, doesn't mean that there aren't any, especially synergistic effects.
You cannot drag potential hypothetical side effects into the discussion, without even trying to describe what these harmful effects would be and why they have not been discovered in all the years these substances have been researched and used recreationally. Remember that mescaline have been used for several thousand years by humans.
panacea wrote:
Part of being a healthy individual is choosing not to flood your body with substances just for the taste or the feeling of it, but to get your pleasure from harmless activities.
That is your definition. Native Americans had a saying that "deer and corn was food for the body, and peyote (mescaline) was food for the soul". Besides, many activities that are usually thought of as harmless by the public are actually more risky than taking psychedelics. For example, it is more risky to ride a horse than to use ecstasy (a drug I personally think is much more harmful than psychedelics).
panacea wrote:
By the way, when you stop taking LSD or another hallucinogen your perception (usually) goes back to normal, which is an 'adverse effect' of not being on the drug.
That is a crazy way to look at it. Getting back to normal is not an adverse effect. It is in the nature of the drug that the effects are temporary.
panacea wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable that people would be addicted to the 'escape of reality' or trip. Just because it's not physically addicting like nicotine doesn't mean it's not addicting. We have to remember that words describe concepts - the basics of addiction is wanting to do something solely for a trivial benefit rather than something that is actually in your best interest - like eating a MacDonald's happy meal instead of raw eggs, because the happy meal tastes better. Similarly, a recreational drug trip of any kind has risks, and the only possible benefit is pleasure not satisfying a need, just like every other social menace.
I repeat myself: Personally, I love it (rollercoaster rides). I do it maybe once a year, or once every second or third year. Would you call it addiction? (...) The bottom line is that psychedelics can be enjoyable, fun and interesting, but it is not usual to do it very often (and it is somewhat impossible, due to tolerance buildup and cross tolerance).
Also, you blatantly state that there is no "need" to take psychedelics, completely ignoring the fact that for many it is a highly spiritual experience.
panacea wrote:
By the way, I don't care at all about 'what you are talking about' in terms of addiction. I care about something actually being addictive, whether it be through physical sensations or psychological ones makes no difference to me, and makes no differences in reality either.
It makes a huge difference, both in theoretical discussions and in reality. It is of course much harder to quit doing something if quitting makes you sick and potentially kills you. That should be obvious. Also, physically addictive substances must be taken every day, many of them several times each day, to avoid symptoms of withdrawal. Psychedelics can be used once a week, once a month or once a year, like I use the rollercoaster. Big difference, as a person being on psychedelics every day (or going to the amusement park every day, for that matter) is not going to get much else done. A person tripping say three times a year, can be a fully functioning individual and member of society, and usually is.
panacea wrote:
Well there's some backwards thinking. Instead of arguing against taking alcohol off the publics hands, lets legalize psychedelics and wait and see what happens to peoples minds. It will be fun...
Prohibition of alcohol would not do much good. Did you not learn history in school, or watch Boardwalk Empire? I do not believe in prohibition or the war on drugs, and see legalization as a real alternative, yes.
panacea wrote:
How many times are you going to under-emphasize the dangers to try and push your beloved drugs on people?
I never pushed anything on anyone. I have no hidden agenda or personal interest in anyone trying psychedelics. I simply do not like that people are ill informed, and the way I see it, you are. Try to read more carefully, or dont comment at all.