Talk:Lysergic acid diethylamide

This article used to be a very good article. It was promoted on 29 September 2007 and demoted on 11 July 2008. This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now. You may see the vote that promoted the article here. You may see the vote that demoted the article here.

Re: Deleted paragraph

The deleted paragraph contains information considered by most medical sources to be accurate, at least at the time of publication. Removing information does not help. Which "original article LSD" is the anonymous deletor (since they can't properly be called a contributor) citing, and which "somewhere else" are they referring to? Which "opposite assertion" is being made in their (unnamed) sources? Are they saying LSD use can actually improve a person's genes? This is how such an assertion comes across. Until I see cited sources to this effect, I prefer to stay with the medical consensus, not the claims of an unregistered, unknown editor. Zephyrad 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

No. Since there is no source proving that those claims are made, your comments are just unverified and rumour. --→Ionas Rand 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are strong words coming from a teenager, who did not grow up around the children of 1960s "acid casualties". I am glad that at least Eptalon has stepped in with some authority. I will listen to discussion, not finger-pointing. (BTW, check your wording... "no source proving that those claims are made"? How many sources making those claims – true or not – would you like to see?) Zephyrad 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Hello, following some edits/reverts, I have now protected the page. The paragraph in question seems to be:

People who use LSD in large amounts, or a large amount over a period of time, can end up with damage to their chromosomes. This can increase their risk of getting cancer someday, or of passing along genetic mutations if they later have children. Abnormal genes can lead to health problems or deformities in those children.

I invite all to discuss this here;If there really are damages to the chromosomes or LSD increasing the risk of getting cancer, there must be studies about that that can be cited. I am not in the medical trade, so other than protecting the article, and pointing out the paragraph that seems to be the one of concern, I cannot do much. --Eptalon 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Links, that could perhaps help

• LSD and Genetic Damage (Science, Vol. 172. no. 3982, pp. 431 - 440 (1971))
• Bogus Science:The LSD-Chromosome Scare

--Eptalon 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting question would be whether the science article of 30 years ago is still accurate, and still reflects the state of the art in the respective science. As I said, I am not into the medical trade, and therefore quite unable to judge this. --Eptalon 20:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reworded

I have put the following into the article again; User:Huji was able to provide a generally accessible source from 1998 fro it: People who use LSD can end up with damage to their chromosomes. This can increase their risk of getting cancer someday, or of passing along genetic mutations if they later have children. Abnormal genes can lead to health problems or deformities in those children. Note, that i took out the concepts of using it over a long time, or using a large quantity. If I understand tohse concepts ocrrectly, those factors simply increase the risk. --Eptalon 15:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you've taken out the concept correctly. I'm trying to find some more sources, and expand it a little. - Huji ^reply 16:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A person who used the drug one time would likely not have these problems. A person who used it frequently, or for a prolonged period, could be in danger, presuming the science is correct. It seems a possible mistake has now been replaced with a definite one. Zephyrad 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Let us say there is an 1% chance of picking up a genetic mutation (no idea, how high it is really, this is just an example). This means that 1 in 100 users of the drug will pick it up. Otherwise put: Statistically every 100th time the thing is used, there will be a mutation. Whether this happens to a first-time user, or a long-term addict is irrelevant. Those consuming more simply have a higher chance of picking it up during their life. Now get the concept of distribution in there. So the only thing that changes with more frequent users is that they have a higher chance of picking it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eptalon (talk • contribs)

Does this same logic apply to, say, cigarettes? Would one out of every hundred people who smoke one cigarette in their lifetime develop lung cancer from it? (The point here is overuse, and long-term use, are the source of the problem; the 1-in-100 scenario just doesn't appear to fit.) Zephyrad 14:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I appear to be coming into the middle of a (somewhat) heated discussion and felt I might add my 2 cents. What is wrong with using the same wording in previous paragraphs to the one in question: Frequent or regular use of LSD can result in damage to chromosomes... I believe this is closest to the intention of the statement. Surely, we don't intend to indicate that one-time usage has a high likelihood of causing long-term damage. · Tygrrr^·talk· 19:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Crossing the street many times will leave you with a higher chance of being involved in a car accident. See section below for what I think is a logically sound argument. --Eptalon 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already read what you wrote below and I believe that your argument supports my suggestion. · Tygrrr^·talk· 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Smoking

In my opinion, the same logic applies; yes. There are people out there, that smoke several packets of cigarettes a day, and do not die of cancer; on the other hand there are people out there, that die of cancer because they worked in a smoky bar once during their holidays. So in essence: Smoke one cigarette, and increase your lung cancer risk. That's why you read those Smoking causes cancer messages on the cigarette packets. --Eptalon 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice: I said ONE cigarette, not a SEASON of secondhand smoke (vast difference there, and you're changing the argument)... and can you please give me some documented examples of such persons, with cancer? (Or one?) Your "essence" does not work... and is basically the same logic that once said ONE marijuana joint could lead to incurable insanity. The persons who had the problems were NOT single-time users of LSD; they were abusers of it. (And the damage will correct itself in time, if the abuser mends their ways. Not so for their offspring, unfortunately.) The only smoking-related cancer patients I am aware of either smoked for many years, or were likewise exposed to secondhand smoke for prolonged periods, NOT one holiday. (And do your "several packs a day" smokers have no health problems at all? No emphysema or heart disease among any of them?) Sorry. Zephyrad 00:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Smoking one cigarette does not increase the risk of getting cancer. It also does not cause changes to the genes.
2. I can therefore safely smoke one cigarette.
3. Because of (1) and (2) above, I can safely repeat the smoking of one cigarette, as many times as I wish.
4. At some point in time, I go to do a screening; doctors find that my genes look different. I may also have some cancer.
5. Per (1), I did not get the gene changes or the cancer from smoking.
6. There are no other influences where the cancer or gene changes can be from. Therefore (1) must be false.

(Note: This is just a thought experiment, My genes do not look different; I also do not have cancer.) - All the best. --Eptalon 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

May I ask where you took your Critical Thinking and Reasoning classes? My old prof would read the above and laugh. Zephyrad 01:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Then please do point out the (logical) error. I am a computer scientist; I have had various courses of (formal,mathematical) logic. The prof above is known as reductio ad absurdum. --Eptalon 08:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That does not answer my question... and since nothing else I have said on this matter appears to carry any weight, I do not see the point in answering yours. I know perfectly well what "reductio ad absurdum" is, thank you... and BTW, do you mean "proof"? Zephyrad 13:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

I have removed the following paragraph, as it looks unscientific; so if it is readded, the claims should be referenced as well: However, the medical communityn has largely diregarded the studies, as they were flawed(i.e, lack of controls) It is also important to note that absolutely anything can change a persons genes.

Proposed demotion

I think the text is generally Ok, but I don't think the references are very clear. Perhaps they are in the list of other websites, but I would like to see a list of publications in a "reference" section, or inline references using <ref>..</ref> tags. Hippopotamus (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the referencing in this article compared to the recently promoted Charles Spurgeon shows there's a lot of work to do here for this article to remain a VGA... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Problematic words/phrases

A starter on the words and phrases which need either linking here, linking to wikt or replacing:

1. slang
2. witness illusions
3. their thought processes
4. therapies
5. laboratory
6. remedy
7. Believing what he saw to be the effects of the drug
8. delusional mental illnesses, like schizophrenia
9. "cold turkey" methods
10. The CIA supposedly felt
11. intense anxiety
12. willingly
13. psychologists
14. professionals
15. the fad
16. "spiked"
17. "It triggers a cascading release of norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin. To a lesser extent methamphetamine acts as a dopaminergic and adrenergic reuptake inhibitor and in high concentrations as a monamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI). Since it stimulates the mesolimbic reward pathway, causing euphoria and excitement, it is prone to abuse and addiction. Users may become obsessed or perform repetitive tasks such as cleaning, hand-washing, or assembling and disassembling objects. Withdrawal is characterized by excessive sleeping, eating, and depression-like symptoms, often accompanied by anxiety and drug-craving.[2] Users of methamphetamine sometimes take sedatives such as benzodiazepines as a means of easing their "come down"."
18. "A person who has aids can lessen or even stop the bad parts of the trip."
19. physically or psychologically

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a thorough copyediting.

• The story about Hoffman's trip is very nice; I am sure it is from some article or book; needs a ref.
• Therapeutic use to help understand the insane: reference?
• Use for trating lacolohics: a study is mentioned, where is it?
• The CIA does not do things without documenting them, no matter what they do.
• How lSD works: needs linking, simplifying and referencing

This is about half the size of Jimi Hendrix; I would therefore expect to see around 10-12 references (which are not other websites) In short, unless someone is really into it, we are probably better off demotin, and re-promoting... --Eptalon (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Eptalon, this is a sensitive and important article whose facts must be correct and referenced. The last thing we need here is a factually inaccurate article upon which people may act. We need an expert or this should be demoted so it's not mainpaged again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

SOme of the CIA stuff (probably also Refs) can be found at en:Project MKULTRA--Eptalon (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"How LSD Works" section contains totally irrelavent information, needs change or removal

Because it talks about methamphetamine and how it works and speaks not one word of LSD. It looks to me like it was copied and pasted straight from the English Wikipedia. How did this go so long unnoticed?--74.234.139.50 (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How LSD works

It triggers a cascading release of norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin. To a lesser extent methamphetamine acts as a dopaminergic and adrenergic reuptake inhibitor and in high concentrations as a monamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI). Since it stimulates the mesolimbic reward pathway, causing euphoria and excitement, it is prone to abuse and addiction. Users may become obsessed or perform repetitive tasks such as cleaning, hand-washing, or assembling and disassembling objects. Withdrawal is characterized by excessive sleeping, eating, and depression-like symptoms, often accompanied by anxiety and drug-craving.[2] Users of methamphetamine sometimes take sedatives such as benzodiazepines as a means of easing their "come down".

Common nicknames for methamphetamine include "meth", "ice", "crystal", "tina", "p", "bitch" and "glass". Methamphetamine is sometimes referred to as "speed", but this term is usually used for regular amphetamine or dextroamphetamine.

This is the section as of the current version of the article; please fix, and improve. I will put in a shorter section in the meantime.--Eptalon (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance of GA and VGA lists

As part of maintenance efforts for the list of VGAs and GAs, the article's promotion and demotion details were updated and the following noted for general information:

• At the time of this article's demotion, there was no process for the demotion of VGAs to GAs. As such, this article was demoted directly from a VGA to a regular article. Chenzw  Talk  08:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)