The first study is problematic (the authors of it have come under fire for some funky data, iirc) but it's pretty much a confirmation of every independent (i.e., not funded by the state) study there has ever been on the matter. Furthermore, the DEA themselves notes that almost all LSD leaves the body within 24 hours and it has been shown to cause no permanent damage to cells. It's not a mutagen or a carcinogen, isn't cytolytic, has shown no chronic toxicity due to its efficient removal from the body, and generally is pretty safe.

I never said it was harmless. I said it was less harmful than alcohol.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961462-6/fulltext#article_upsell

Let me see here... Looks like this website is his only claim to fame! He was a medical examiner for almost his entire career and never actually studied these effects -- which is shown by the ridiculously sparse and inaccurate information on display and the lack of any published papers!

EDIT: That means this source isn't reliable. Find me a peer-reviewed paper, or at least an article based on one. When even the DEA, notorious for their lies about drug effects, says that LSD causes no permanent damage, you're probably wrong.

When people are citing you The Lancet, you really need a little more than that ;)

Also, does SOPA include drug provisions, or did the thread just go its usual haywire way?

The latter. I don't even know where!

Will Wikipedia do ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD#Potential_adverse_effects

How is something that gives you brain damage less harmful than something that doesn't(alcohol)?

It is physiologically well tolerated and there is no evidence for long-lasting physiological effects on the brain or other parts of the human organism.[47]

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. It may cause temporary confusion, difficulty with abstract thinking, or signs of impaired memory and attention span.[48]

From your link.

Thank you!

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear: Wikipedia is saying that TEMPORARY effects can be bad. Absolutely.

But once it's out of your system, it's out of your system.

The citations seem sound on that. I'll get back to you on the questionable bollocks below it.

EDIT2: Nope, all looks good. Maybe you missed some spots though.

From "psychosis":
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).
Cohen (1960) noted:[56]
"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."

From "flashbacks":
Any attempt at explanation must reflect several observations: first, over 70 percent of LSD users claim never to have "flashed back"; second, the phenomenon does appear linked with LSD use, though a causal connection has not been established; and third, a higher proportion of psychiatric patients report flashbacks than other users.[57] Several studies have tried to determine how likely a user of LSD, not suffering from known psychiatric conditions, is to experience flashbacks.

I admit HPPD is one thing that seems to have a load of evidence going for it, but consider the incidence of it among chronic LSD users is around 4.1%. Meanwhile, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_liver_disease has an incidence of 15-20%.

All of the citations for the stuff I mention above seem to be reasonably decent at a cursory glance.

You seem to forget that LSD is illegal, much less used and much less tested than alcohol, hence long-term consequences are less likely to be found. You need only read about what that thing(LSD) actually does, how it affects parts of your brain, and it would be very hard to believe the effects aren't permanent, even if you've used regularly for only a short period .

If there was Hell, it would be this 0_0'... Sweet, merciful Logos...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-HT2A_receptor <-- The only thing LSD binds to in the human body.
It's largely used by antipsychotics, as well as CANNABIS. As in, marijuana.

It is, specifically, what CBD in cannabis binds to. That is to say, it's the receptor used by "sleepy" pot. Mids, I believe it's called.

It's the active site for every typical entheogen.

If you believe that LSD can cause irreversable damage through this binding site, then so can pot (the studies do not support this, aside from when used by children, which may be due to a different active chemical), antipsychotics (very supported -- but that's due to bindings with other sites and general toxicity of most antipsychotics' metabolites), psilocybin (not supported), mescaline (not supported) and on and on.

EDIT: And here's why what you're talking about with LSD wouldn't be supported with the horrible effects of antipsychotics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atypical_antipsychotic#Tardive_dyskinesia

That doesn't happen with LSD in ANY study, and its because of a completely different receptor.

Well, when the CIA is the world's biggest and most successful crime syndicate that's the kind of reaction you can expect. But I agree with the general principal of what you're saying, even if it's more from the standpoint that a rapist trying to give money to his victim isn't about to generate any goodwill in the attempt.

This. All of my this.

That's a crap rationalization. Walking across the street with my eyes closed is less hazardous than jumping out of an aircraft with a possibly improperly packed parachute and failing to check to see that it is properly packed.

Just because something is less hazardous does not imply that it's wrongly considered to be dangerous, it could be, as I would argue in this case it is, that alcohol should be banned for being unsafe.

The reason in this case that alcohol isn't banned is because it's such a cultural thing to drink that nobody was willing to obey the law when the US had prohibition. Safety has nothing to do with it being legal.
Thanks for linking that. The problem with LSD is that it may or may not cause damage to the receptor site and there's no particular way of knowing when the receptor site will be repaired.

I will grant you that it's rather unlikely for there to be sizable damage and certainly not life long damage. But, antipsychotics serve a medical purpose. Whereas LSD has yet to be shown effective in the treatment of any medical disorder that I'm aware of.

Also all of my this.

EDIT:

You edity bastard.
There is evidence (though without a decent trial for it yet) that it may be more effective and less damaging than atypical antipsychotics for treating many mental illnesses in sub-hallucinogenic doses. Among these are a couple rare ones I have myself, so I have STRONG interest in seeing where that goes. That's also why I know so damn much about it.