Talk:LSD

False/Biased information

Is this article ment to be some sort of advartising for LSD consumption? This drug is very dangerous and its use is ilegal in many countries. I would prefer an article talking about the research made on LSD and more info about its bio-chemical effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.79.170 (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if it is as dangerous as you believe, you could go and find some research or evidence to support your claims (rather than just state what your mum told you as an irrefutable fact), and add it to the article your self. This is the power of Wikipedia. XQx (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, given the maturity of this article, it would be better to find sources and then discuss them here before editing the article. Let's also try to avoid snarkiness if we can. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the information given is not either false, nor biased. It is presented in a very factual manner and its references are clear. Its dangers are also clearly outlined in the "Risks of LSD use" section. MahJesus (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

False info

I completely agree. I searched some infos about psihedelic drugs in order to understand the effects of dopamine and other neurotransmiters and I found this "thing". Imagine some people that don't know too much about drugs and LSD (children etc.) reading this article. I usually don't write articles here because I don't think I am capable to write everything as correct as it would be necessary for Wikipedia but it seams that others don't bother with this aspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.79.170 (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to 'protect' children from information. The article lays out the facts and cites the sources for that information. If you have sources which suggest LSD is "very dangerous" then be bold, include them in the article. Otherwise you may wish to consider that the reason for there not being a lot of information about how "dangerous" this substance is could be to do with the lack of evidence and not the "bias" of wikipedia. 92.16.122.252 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. The Internet is for adults, if parents want to censor what their children learn, they should control their children, not attempt to control the rest of the world. If there is supporting evidence to the contrary of what is written in this article, then please update it. (note: scholarly articles and peer-reviewed research is generally preferred over DEA propaganda) XQx (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Physical Effect/Dependence Graph Needs to be Removed

This graph is simply wrong. It should be removed. Any thoughts? 24.17.198.232 (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)ssde

I mean....it was published in the Lancet, considered one of the most prestigeous medical journals. have any proof to counter it? John 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I too have a problem with the graph, and though I think it should stay...perhaps it should have some sort of disclaimer explaining some of the problems with it? Though I quite often cite that article in my discussions with the uneducated, and find it a very useful tool for breaking down the first barrier to truth that "legal = better"...we cannot rely on it as scientific fact because it simply is not.

From my personal experience, and the 2nd hand experiences of a great multitude of my friends and acquintances, I can assure with absolute certainty that many aspects of that graph are incorrect. LSD and Ecstasy for example (taken to mean pure MDMA or otherwise), are not even remotely close in dependance, or potential ill health effects...yet the graph would seem to indicate such.

The reason for this is somewhat obvious on a detailed inspection, yet most people browsing might take that graph to be absolute truth. The graph demonstrates percieved (not measured, not scientific) harm, gathered using a poll (this is probably my biggest gripe with it, a poll is far from conclusive or scientific), of medical psychiatrists (though experts in their field, only limited attention should be paid to their "findings" (or more accurately, untested opinions) concerning addiction potential, while none at all should be paid to any perceptions of physical harm).

Conclusively, though I like this graph for my own pro-drugs (though I wouldn't say biased, I came to this conclusion through neutral assesment of the facts) agenda, I nonetheless feel that the flaws it has shouldn't be left unstated, and to prevent countless people swallowing it as undisputable fact (which I did myself when I first saw it), some sort of disclaimer should be included in the article. Failing that, perhaps the picture should be removed altogether...though I feel this might be a rather extreme step. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.3.228 (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This image is nothing more than a poll of the personal opinions of the questioned psychiatrist. It might be interesting in itself that these psychiatrist's opinions differ so obviously long established facts, but it does not constitute any notability for this article. In my opinion, this scheme does not belong into the article as I have suggested earlier on this talk page. Cacycle (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Error in "Possible physical effects of LSD" pic.....LSD Decreases Heart Rate?

I'm not sure how accurate this info is in the "Possible physical effects of LSD" pic....LSD is known to be a stimulant and it does stimulate the heart thus leading to a faster heart rate......so why does it say otherwise here? I'm pretty sure it doesn't decrease heart rate, is there any evidence for this? Zachorious (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I remember, physical effects are very unspecific and unreliable and can include increases as well as decreases or no effects in most if not all measured parameters. For that reason I think we should get rid of that image. Cacycle (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Those images seemingly popped up out of nowhere on multiple articles about psychoactives.--Metalhead94 (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Move/rename/redirect: I set up links and contacted authors, this is turning into an edit war when I have tried in good faith for it not to be

Twice I have moved LSD off this, twice it has been reverted. I took it to WP:RM before I started, with no response. I fixed up other articles to make the DAB page. I made my objection clear: there are 30 uses of the term LSD and I don't think it should redirect straight to this article. THat can be discussed, sure, but can we actually have the discussion? I also put it at WP: WikiProject Disambiguation. I have put notes on the talk pages of people involved. So I think I have exhibited good faith here and these reversions are just going to become an edit war. Can we please discuss it? I don't care where but it needs to be thrashed out rather than an edit war.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects should reflect common usage. By far the most frequent usage of the acronym LSD is for the drug; I see nothing on the disambiguation page that even comes close. There is a hat pointing out the disambig page at the top of the article. That's definitely good enough. Graft | talk 00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the page view stats. In April, "LSD" was accessed 192237 times. The Dab page was accessed 2737 times. That means slightly more than 1% of the people who search for "LSD" want anything other than this page -- it may be a bit higher because there are probably people who don't know that they should look for a dab. Looie496 (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

half life

I see a half life of three hours indicated, but no source for this information. This conflicts with what I had thought it was, a bit longer. Could someone provide a source? There's lots of info about previously determined halflifes with less sensitive equipment that produced erroneous results, so be carefule about older sources.--24.29.234.88 (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a reference here that indicates a half life of roughly 175 minutes which is ~3 hours (http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?A=ShowDocPartFrame&ID=2224&DocPartID=2063), while this reference states 5 hours to be the half life and 3 hours to be the peak plasma levels (http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?ID=6265), I am going to go with 5 hours. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 05:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, I simply put 3-5 hours for half-life and provided the two references. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 05:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)