Talk:LSD/Archive 6

2 Edit requests

There is some quite bad abuse of references in this article.

The third paragraph of the introduction cites "Introduced by Sandoz Laboratories, with trade-name Delysid, as a drug with various psychiatric uses in 1947, LSD quickly became a therapeutic agent that appeared to show great promise" with a reference to the patent which says next to nothing about the use of the drug, and instead looks exclusively at the production of it.

The one that really is annoying thought is in potential use, under the subheading psychotherapy. The second paragraph is an appalling distortion of the paper it cites and quotes. The Malleson (1971) paper doesn't look at efficacy at all, and it is not at all fair to say "the majority of UK doctors with clinical experience with LSD felt that LSD was effective and had acceptable safety". What can be said is that most UK doctors that had used LSD had not found it harmful enough to stop using it, or had found it obviously without efficacy. This is a very different thing. This section should probably just be deleted, unless a valid reference can be found to replace it.IrregularApocalypse (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

An edit request, in order to be useful, needs to specify exactly the change in the article that is being requested. It might be simpler, though, if you would just make a few more edits (of any sort), so that you have a total of 10, in which case you would be able to edit the article yourself. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Might "LSD was introduced by Sandoz Laboratories, with the trade-name Delysid, as a drug with various psychiatric uses in 1947." work better in the third paragraph of the introduction? Or even "possible psychiatric uses"? Put "LSD quickly became" somewhere outside the footnote?Exwheelman5200 (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Where it says "also, some people have reported that taking an SSRI such as fluoxetine will counteract the effects of LSD", this is poorly phrased an missleading. SSRIs such as fluoxetine are not an antidote and nothing in the citation or any other source has ever suggested so, a person experiencing the effects of LSD cannot take an SSRI to stop or reduce the effects. This part could read "also, some people have reported having previously taken SSRIs such as fluoxetine will somewhat counteract the effects of LSD" and it would be a valid statement, I'm not sure it would belong in this section though. This part should be reworded or removed from this paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.8.85 (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Creativity and "doll painting" section is unfinished

What's the point of mentioning research without listing its conclusions? Perhaps "Hertel found while the LSD art was neither superior nor inferior to the artist's other work, paintings were brighter, more abstract and non-representational, and tended to fill the entire canvas" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.200.51 (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Notable individuals

Paul McCartney never said that those songs were about LSD. In fact, the referenced article says the exact opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.67.87 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You only have three people, soon it will be thirty. Kesey isn’t even there yet, how to handle him? Do you stop at three hundred, or three thousand?

Will people want to be on the list? Do you only include those who are “out”, or do you count those who have been convicted or otherwise proven? Or thought to be? We would think “out only”, but it’s your game.

Perhaps adding Dock Ellis, pitcher for the Pittsburgh Pirates. He was very vocal about pitching a no-hitter game while on LSD.

You don’t want to appear biased, but do you need to have a represenative number of negative examples, and who is who?

On another track, when you get to Music, you will have a ton of great “before and after” material. Probably in other arts, also, but Music will be huge.

We wish this article "good luck", it will need it. Thanks for your time.Bornagainandagainandagain (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Allen Ginsburg, poet, advocate. (I don’t know what to say about this guy, but he is notable.)

Ken Kesey, author, advocate, and main subject of Tom Wolfe’s The Electris Kool-Aid Acid Test. (He is known primarily for L.S.D., but both in reality and as Tom Wolfe’s “folk hero”, he has had a huge impact on the drug).

Timothy Leary, researcher and advocate. (Despite his shortcomings, he’s the most well known “researcher”. Use of drug seems to affect objectivity in many cases.)

Hunter S. Thompson, author and journalist. His “Gonzo Journalism” often features exagerated drug useage. (Altho he often presents himself as a drunken, drugged maniac, this guy’s pretty deep, and must have more fans than just me. In Hell’s Angels (page 227) he says “half dozen bouts I recall”. Associated with Kesey, Tom Wolfe, and probably Ginsburg.)

Who is notable, and why?

Tom Wolfe, author, does not appear to have ever taken the drug, yet his Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test is clearly important. Does he belong here?

Rock & Roll musicians. Altho The Beatles are obvious, a wise person told us “if we started putting in every pop culture connection, that section might wind up longer than the rest of the article.” We agree. There may be more coming on this subject.

Other sites' lists- On the Wiki article “Psychedelic_experience” there is an outside link to http://www.tietoiseen.fi/w/index.php?title=Main_Page. This appears to be some parallel/competing? Wiki site, which has lists of public figures’ comments on L.S.D. and other drugs. Appears quite useful to this section.

Thanx.Exwheelman5200 (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of adverse reactions

This was removed recently from the "Antidotes" section because it was unreferenced medical advise:

While it also may not end an LSD trip, the best chemical treatment for a "bad trip" is an anxiolytic agent such as diazepam (Valium) or another benzodiazepine. As the effect of the drug is psychological as well as physical, any treatment should focus on calming the patient. Limiting stimuli such as bright lights and loud noises can help in the event of an ill reaction.

This is the standard advice in medical textbooks, and it would be sensible and fitting to include here. Please, could someone provide a reference? Or I will try to find one eventually. Tova Hella (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Lifetime and past year % use

Please, would someone write up prevalence of use? Here are the statistics for European countries: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats11/gps And here for the US: http://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/tabs/TOC.htm Tova Hella (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

illegal use by Department of Defense

A great article. Incidentally, there is a set of hearings before Congress concerning the Department of Defense usage of LSD on unknowing soldiers. Senator Kennedy chaired them. Although there is a record of the hearings in Government Documents, they have thus far illuded me. I wish someone could find them. Perhaps someone cam across them in their research. It would be a great addition to what is already a great article. Mugginsx (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2012

Kindly add the following to the preparation method : The production method uses lysergic Acid (derived by hydrolyzing ergotamine).The lysergic Acid is reacted with sulfur trioxide to afford a mixed anhydride which subsequently is reacted with diethyl amine to afford the LSD in high yeild. This method was first described in US Patent 2,736,728 (1956 to Eli lilly) by Pioch and Garbrecht.Another more recent method employed is reacting the lysergic acid with a DMF-Phosgene complex and subsequent reaction of the product (without isolation) with diethyl amine. The latter method method was first described by Patelli and Bernardi in US Patent 3,141,887 (1964 to Farmitalia). 117.223.107.2 (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your addition looks reasonable, but I have to ask you to provide your source. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 October 2012

"in 1960s" should become "in the 1960s" M.gauci (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done sentence is gramatically correct as it is. It's like saying "you have to take your shoes off in airport security lines". gwickwire | Leave a message 21:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur. "1960s" is used as an adjective to modify "counterculture". We could change it to "counterculture of the 1960s", but it seems unnecessary. Rivertorch (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

New form?

this article provides very little information, but if this idea of LSD causing people to eat people spreads, it will be highly notable. does anyone know of any new variants on the chemical that are sold on the street, which may be what the person is referring to?(mercurywoodrose)75.61.130.86 (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If there were a new variant, it wouldn't be LSD. LSD is a specific chemical. We can't be responsible for every random thing a police officer says. Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"Reports however yesterday suggested Eugene was likely under the influence of the synthetic stimulant "bath salts" made with the active agent mephedrone, which produces an often aggressive, chaotic experience for users, coupled with intense hallucinations."[1] The "new form of LSD" was just initial speculation, even apart from whether there can be such a thing as a "new form" of LSD. postdlf (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

can definitely be different analogs of LSD that work in similar fashion. Most designer ones nowadays have more sympathomimetic activity, so cause more psychosis and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalkyl (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't LSD, it was bath salts. If anything, people on LSD are reported to lose their appetite, not increase it. Again, we have poor, irresponsible reporting. According to statistics on hospital admissions and reports on physiological studies, LSD is safer than legal pharmaceutical drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. It's not illegal because of its threat to public health. It's illegal because people question authority after taking it. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding Haldol

>> neuroleptics such as Haldol should be avoided because they may cause hallucinations or paranoid delusions. <<

I have never heard of Haldol being able to "cause" hallucinations or paranoid delusions. Its reputaton for doing the opposite is so established that it can be compared to a sledge hammer on undesireable manifestations like hallucinations and psychosis. I am not certain that the above statement is accurate. And for that matter some of the opening statements of this article which downplay LSD's negative side-effects raise questions about the accuracy of this whole article which I suspect is very biased. Marty55 (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

POV

Leaving out facts and putting spin on others is not neutral POV. Parts of this article read like a marketing campaign. For instance, no one has died? I'm sorry, I've known three people, three friends who died on bad trips. And many others who can no longer function. And 3 times that many who flashback and are incapacitated for 5-30 minutes; very bad in emergencies. Also, why are we leaving out that the Nazis developed it as a chemical or psycho-active weapon? I'm not a Prohibitionist. But this article is a marketing tool. 64.250.228.220 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal anecdotes are not reliable medical sources, which are needed. If you have reliable sources, you are welcome to improve the article. --KDesk (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 December 2012

Please add the following to the end of the section on "End-of-Life Anxiety" Although this is already cited under "Notable Individuals", this is still relevant to end-of-life anxiety as he requested LSD while on his deathbed:

Aldous Huxley, who authored Brave New World, while dying of cancer, on November 22, 1963, his wife injected him with 100 µg of LSD by his request. He died from the cancer later that day.

71.186.142.87 (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Duplicating almost identical content in two different places in the article doesn't seem like a good idea. The top-level section of which the End-of-life anxiety section is a part deals largely with controlled studies of effects and potential uses of LSD, not anecdotes about famous people who have used it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but Huxley is the most famous person who used it on his deathbed, and likely the first. Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, too. If so, that's an excellent argument for its staying in the Notable individuals section. Rivertorch (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing famous persons

There's nothing about Leonard Pickard's laboratory, his history, philosphy and his mission to spread lsd around the world...Pls account this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyGrace (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

For purposes of reference, that is William Leonard Pickard. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Drug Schedules in UK

The article states that LSD is a "Schedule I" drug in the UK. The UK does not have a schedule system, instead drugs are classified in categories A, B and C. There are NO schedules. Please change this. It might seem like a minor error, but legally speaking its wrong. We do not follow the US drug schedules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.167.59 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: Small error in "Production" section

It says: "Five kilograms of precursor ergotamine tartrate can produce 5–6 kg of pure crystalline LSD". According to the source, it should say: "Twenty five kilograms...". Naazgul (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching the error and reporting it here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 June 2013

"In 1969 Moseley (now Gottschalk) working at the University of California, Riverside, under Edward Crellin Pauling, using e. coli ligase mutant strain obtained results indicating no breakage and that therapeutically high doses actually reduced breakage."

I maintain the following edit was made by Moseley herself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lysergic_acid_diethylamide&diff=prev&oldid=485971935

This page is the only place on the Internet that mentions this research. The text references footnote 64, which points to a book you can browse on google. The book does not mention the work of Karl Moseley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.2.41.114 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Taste

Hey , I have read the biographical portion of the book called PIHKAL , and there is a story in it about one of Shulgin's associates who accidentally tripped when he tasted the spatula which he had used for weighing out some LSD . When he was asked what it tasted like , he said , that it was either slightly or mildly "bitter" . I believe the biography is only available in print , while the mere "cookbook" portion of PIHKAL is freely available online . Because this anecdote about the taste of LSD is part of the of the biographical portion of PIHKAL , I am resetting the following request to "answered=no" . Also , based on this information , I don't believe the following request for a change should have been made . MalcolmX86 (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)  

Please make the following change at cited claim [6]

The sentence reads "In pure form it is a colorless, odorless, and mildly bitter solid"

The book that is referenced at citation [6] is available online to read in its entirety for free. A look at this source shows no mention of LSD whatsoever, let alone with regard to its flavor. In considering that this may be an error confusing "Phikal" for "Thikal" (Alexander Shulgin's book about tryptamines as opposed to phenylthylamines), I checked to see if any reference to LSD flavor occurs in Thikal. It also does not in this book. By googling each book and accessing it at erowid.org, anyone can go to the LSD article and search with ctrl+f about bitterness or flavor to see evidence of this.

Hoffman, in his first book "LSD, My problem Child" mentions that LSD is tasteless. This book can also be viewed or free at the following URL:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/ehn/Web/release/problem-child.html

Again, just use CTRL+F to search for simplicity.

Please consider the above detailed revision.

-genos92

Done. Thanks for the perceptive research. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the full-text of Pihkal and Tihkal is not available online, only Part 2 is on Erowid, Part 1 which has an autobiographical history of Shulgin's work with psychedelics is copyrighted and only in print. The reference to a bitter taste of LSD is in Part 1 of Pihkal (or possibly in Tihkal, I don't have a copy to check). A naive laboratory assistant tasted what he thought was a tiny amount of LSD that had spilled on the ground, and he announced to Shulgin that LSD was actually somewhat bitter rather than tasteless. This was a very long time ago when it was common for chemists to identify chemicals by taste. The assistant didn't have any clue about LSD, but he did have an enjoyable experience.Tova Hella (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

SMILES

The circle in polygon format is not recognized by Reaxys. I have set about replacing many SMILES but being protected, I cannot change this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvwynn (talk • contribs) 12:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

By "circle in polygon", do you mean "aromatic ring"? That's one of the well-defined parts of the SMILES#Aromaticity system, so please file a bug with the authors of software that can't handle it. You might want to bring this issue up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals or Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox to get consensus how to proceed. It would be easy to semi-automate the fixes if that's the right solution. But instead there might be a strong push-back of "no, we don't need to change technically correct data to support buggy software". DMacks (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Bad research on neuroleptics

Haldol and other typical or atypical neuroleptics are exactly the drugs that stop the LSD trip completely. They work AGAINST hallucinations and paranoid delusions (and don't elicit them like it is stated in the article). Benzos like Valium dampen the trip but don't counter the effects as specifically and effectively as neuroleptics do. I am changing the article accordingly. --192.17.210.111 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Numbness?

Since when is numbness a symptom of LSD? I've taken LSD at least 14 times, and all 14 of them I experienced the opposite of numbness; i.e. an increase in tactile perception (as well as auditory, olfactory, & visually). LSD, as well as the other psychedelics (that is, tryptamines & phenethylamines) cause enhanced sensory perception, not numbness. This sentence should be changed accordingly, especially seeing as how it lacks citation (but is instead based on user reports). I am a user, and I report the opposite of numbness; the statement that LSD causes numbness is quite misleading, if not a complete fallacy.

(Psychonaut25 - 13375p34k / C0n7r1b5 01:13 AM EST, 18 October 2013 (UTC))

It does seem odd, but remember, personal experience does not give reason to edit a page. I would expect numbness is a product of vasoconstriction. Exercisephys (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Addiction

Your article cites one paper on the addictiveness of LSD. Hardly the entire "medical community." Also, in the paper you cite LSD is under "things not yet categorized" and says "LSD does not appear to be addictive." It also mentions how wild animals will not continue to take LSD as evidence to support the claim. The sentence we have on the page is incredibly misleading considering they readily admit not knowing much on the subject, and the inferences with no data to back it up. Thanks. 97.89.27.105 (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Psychosis Section

It is not clear in this section whether it is the current medical opinion that LSD-induced psychosis is a rare phenomenon or a placebo/nocebo effect.

I think this section should be re-written - as well as merged with "Mental disorders" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivamoque (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable individuals-->Aldous Huxley

This letter written by Huxley's wife states she administered a 100 µg injection followed by another 100 µginjection an hour later. This would make the total amount administered as he lay dying 200 µg, not 100 as the article currently states. http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/03/most-beautiful-death.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Prevalence of use

This page could use a "Prevalence of use" section. Here's a link of prevalence among American high-schoolers:

http://www.drugabuse.gov/trends-statistics/monitoring-future/monitoring-future-study-trends-in-prevalence-various-drugs

Exercisephys (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Serotonin Syndrome and Seizures

The Wikipedia article for Serotonin Syndrome lists LSD as a potential cause, while the page for LSD doesn't even mention Serotonin Syndrome. It's potentially fatal and should be included. Also, there are anecdotes of seizures being caused by LSD, though I'm not aware of research. In general, are there deleterious effects and risks of LSD that are being neglected in this article?

Kolmogoroff (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)1/31/2014

Reviews of serotonin syndrome generally list LSD as one of the things that can cause it, but in a quick scan of the literature I was unable to spot anything more specific than that. Looie496 (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Bias

This page seems like it displays considerable bias, and I wouldn't be surprised if LSD takers edited this. Beware.

Mister asdfjkl; (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but without more specificity it isn't actionable. In any case, the goal is for our article to reflect the consensus of reliable sources -- it doesn't really matter who writes the material. Looie496 (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Results from Swiss end of life anxiety study have been published

The press release is here http://www.maps.org/media/view/press_release_lsd_study_breaks_40_years_of_research_taboo/ and the ahead of print report is available here http://www.maps.org/research/lsd/Gasser-2014-JMND-4March14.pdf. The report is Creative Commons licensed and so can probably be added to WikiSource.50.44.141.204 (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggest change of wording in introductory paragraph

The article mentions LSD causing "closed and open eye visuals," but the term "visuals" is basically slang used by users of LSD to describe the pseudohallucinations it causes. "Pseudohallucinations" is a much more accurate term for the visual distortions caused by LSD, and so I suggest changing the article to read "closed and open eye pseudohallucinations" in order to be readable by anyone.

Pseudohallucination is not a term used by common users or professionals, especially since a hallucination is "A sensory perception of something that does not exist," and there's no in-between of something that exists and something that does not exist. Regardless, I also think "visuals" is to inclusive to the psychedelic community; "visual effects" or "visual manipulations," I think would be a more generalized term. Samsoncity (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Subsection "Sensory" in the "Effects" section should be renamed "Sensorial"

"Sensorial" though not a very common term, would fit nicely among the other subsection titles "Physical" and "Psychological," while still being accurate and descriptive and that subsection. I'm most likely on the losing end of this argument, but I thought it was an interesting idea to bring up. Samsoncity (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Name

As per WP:COMMONNAME, should this article be renamed to "LSD"? JDiala (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think originally it was titled "LSD," but it was changed a while back; Most drugs go by their generic professional name for example Tetrahydrocannabinol is not titled as THC. Here is the discussion regarding the original move. Samsoncity (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Small error in introduction

The partial sentence «abbreviation for the German "Lysergsäure-diethylamid"» should read: "Lysergsäure-Diethylamid" for proper German capitalization. Bold should be applied to emphasize the source of the common abbreviation "LSD". --Sumpfchiller (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Binding affinities

1. There appears to be a mistake in the affinities listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD#Pharmacodynamics where the 5-HT2 affinities are listed as "5-HT2A (Ki=2.9nM), 5-HT2B (Ki=4.9nM), 5-HT2C (Ki=23nM)". This is opposed the the graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LSDaffinities.GIF (also used in the article) where the values are (roughly) 5-HT2A (Ki=3nM), 5-HT2B (Ki=23nm) and 5-HT2C (Ki=5). I believe that the article text has 2B and 2C reversed and the graph is correct but unfortunately the source for both the text and the graph is no longer reachable. Could someone find another source and correct the text as is necessary? I have very little knowledge on the topic and could be mistaken as well, but in that case the article might require clarification. Tronic2 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Move request: Lysergic acid diethylamide → LSD

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Purely on a count of editors this proposal doesn't have a majority. Judging from the guidelines it seems that either name would be acceptable. Lacking a decisive argument from the guideline favoring a move the page should stay where it is. The wording of WP:ACRONYMTITLE says "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject.." NASA and CIA are both mentioned in the guideline as examples to consider. See the NASA debate from 2006 and CIA debate from 2008. I don't see any 'clincher' arguments on either of those, but NASA had fewer than 50% of editors supporting a move to the long form while the proposal to move the Central Intelligence Agency from the full name to the acronym got almost no support. In the NASA move discussion it was pointed out that IBM, AIDS, HIV and CD-ROM all had acronyms as their titles while spelled-out titles were found for NAMBLA, FCC, SEC and NAACP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Lysergic acid diethylamide → LSD – [WP:CHEMNAME#General rule]: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."; [WP:ACRONYMTITLE]: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject"; [WP:NAMINGCRITERIA]; [WP:COMMONNAME] — Jaydiem (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support per reasons stated. That was apparently the original title anyway. Here is a move proposal from seven years ago that was closed as no consensus.- MrX 17:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose—while "LSD" is very recognizable, and that rationale good, I think that we should avoid having acronyms or other abbreviations as primary titles. In particular, I'm thinking about ambiguity: "Lysergic acid diethylamide" is very unambiguous, while "LSD" offers potential for confusion with other uses of the acronym. The current situation, where "LSD" is a redirect but the article at the full name, seems like the best situation. Linking is natural, the title is unambiguous, and I don't think that there's a good argument that anyone is confused by the full name if they have any inkling about the nature of LSD. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 19:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Re: "I think that we should avoid having acronyms or other abbreviations as primary titles." — That's fine, but I'm just following current Wikipedia guidelines (WP:ACRONYMTITLE, among others). If you disagree with those guidelines, you should make your case in the appropriate forum for policy changes. So long as the policy is what it is, however, I think it's incumbent upon us to follow it. Regarding your disambiguation concerns, please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As for linking being "easy and second nature", as the policy says—or "natural", as you put it—I'm curious as to the reasoning behind the assertion that linking to "Lysergic acid diethylamide" is somehow easier, or more natural, than linking to "LSD". — Jaydiem (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Jaydiem: The guideline says very clearly Whether the acronym or the spelled-out phrase is preferable in many particular cases is debatable, and goes on to describe a number of cases where the expanded or abbreviated titles were chosen. I am arguing that, in this case, the spelled-out name is preferable. In other words, I am also following the guideline. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
      • No, you are expressing a personal preference unsupported by any guideline. See #Discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I'll respond in that section. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 01:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per common name. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nihiltres. Better to have this spelled out. This is also not a landing ship dock, which is also quite common, in a different field. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, using an acronym as title is not convenient, when there are so many other meanings, LSD (disambiguation). As stated previously, it depends on the field, LSD doesn't always refer to Lysergic acid diethylamide. To avoid confusion, better to call it by its name. —Götz (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Mild oppose, while this is better known than Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol → THC Talk:Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid → EDTA, there's still little upside to retitling to the abbreviation. "LSD" redirects here. For other uses, see LSD (disambiguation). will cover it. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support. More natural, concise, and recognizable--hey, that's three out of five at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. We're done here. Red Slash 08:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nihiltres. Its already at its proper name. It has 100 slang names, but leaving it at its most common proper and medically excepted name seems logical. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The case in terms of policy and guidelines is convincing. The opposition seems to stem from personal likes and dislikes, and misunderstanding of the guidelines. There is no reason for departing from the common name, nor any question that this is LSD, nor any question that this is the primary meaning of LSD. Andrewa (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nihiltres. I also think that encyclopedias are places where readers are reminded, for a split second, of the words behind acronyms. Strict obedience to "current Wikipedia guidelines" is for robots, not editors. The issue not a huge deal for me. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • See #Discussion below for a reply to this. Andrewa (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

From the survey above: The guideline says very clearly Whether the acronym or the spelled-out phrase is preferable in many particular cases is debatable, and goes on to describe a number of cases where the expanded or abbreviated titles were chosen. I am arguing that, in this case, the spelled-out name is preferable. In other words, I am also following the guideline. [2] The quote is from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms in page titles.

Even if the spelled out name is consistent with the guideline you cite (and I could argue that both ways), so is the shortened form, and it's also consistent with all other guidelines, including several that the longer term violates. Andrewa (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I object to your assertions above that my argument is based on merely a "personal preference". I feel mildly insulted. As I mentioned above, I'm thinking about ambiguity: "Lysergic acid diethylamide" is very unambiguous, while "LSD" offers potential for confusion with other uses of the acronym. My objection here is that "LSD" is less unambiguous than "Lysergic acid diethylamide". There are a number of other arguments I can make in its favour, but before I do that… you need to make an argument, because you have not set one out concretely. As an example of your ambiguity: you say that there are […] several [guidelines] that the longer term violates, but you don't specify which or how. I currently doubt that these guidelines are violated by the longer title—convince me otherwise. I'm open to reason. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 01:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel I'm being personal, but I still think personal preference is what your arguments boil down to. We have policies and guidelines, and these should be followed (including WP:IAR of course, but even that needs a rationale). Otherwise, why have them?

As to the other guidelines to which I referred, these are cited above and I didn't think it necessary to repeat them here. The most important is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which gives two criteria for determining a primary topic, and LSD (the drug) satisfies both of them. Doesn't it?

You seem to be applying criteria for primary topic that are a lot stronger than the current guideline. And that's fair enough in my opinion, but we need to be clear exactly what is going on. If consensus here is that this is appropriate in this case, then we will need to look at tweaking the guideline to reflect this.

As to the other arguments to which you refer, please do set them out, especially if they relate to WP:AT or other policies or guidelines. We can't consider them otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There are few arguments made above that suggest that "Lysergic acid diethylamide" is actually in opposition to the policies and guidelines cited. I think I've already addressed those. The vast majority of them are merely suggesting that the acronym would be better, which is quite different. The core policy WP:AT identifies five characteristics to be balanced: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency.

• There's a reasonable argument that "LSD" is more broadly recognizable, which I've conceded. This point is weak because "Lysergic acid diethylamide" is obvious enough for someone who knows generally that LSD is a recreational drug, especially as the point is qualified as recognizable to someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area.
• The "LSD" title is more natural for linking or searching… but this is a moot point because the acronym redirects to the full title. Without the redirect, this would be a good argument, but it's trivial in context.
• Precision is where the full title is clearly superior. "LSD" has a disambiguation page full of alternatives, whereas "Lysergic acid diethylamide" is completely unambiguous. Sure, this is the primary topic for "LSD", but again, that's handled by the redirect. On the matter of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC specifically, that guideline concerns matching topics to titles, not vice versa—it's irrelevant here.
• While "LSD" is unquestionably more concise than "Lysergic acid diethylamide", this is a trivial point. The full title is not so long as to be unwieldy. I'm not arguing for (6aR,9R)-N,N-diethyl-7-methyl-4,6,6a,7,8,9-hexahydroindolo-[4,3-fg]quinoline-9-carboxamide, and there's precedent for long titles in the face of acronyms, like some of those listed at WP:ACRONYMTITLE.
• Those examples are important for the last point, consistency. The full title is demonstrably consistent with the titles of similar arguments. Tetrahydrocannabinol and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid have already been mentioned above, and I'm sure it would be easy to find more examples. I notice that move proposals were also made for those articles, but they have failed, or look likely to soon fail.

If we tally those, we have: one that favours the acronym, another that's moot in context, another that's trivial, and two that are supportive of the current title. I'll say it again: we already get the advantages of the acronym through the redirect, with few disadvantages. The full title is preferable.

On the "personal preference" front: even if it doesn't cross a line, it at least comes close to questioning my motives, i.e. not assuming good faith. Further, it's unnecessary: if my position is solely unsupportable personal preference, argument will bear that out. Do you understand my objection now? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 03:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

To deal with these five in order:

Disagree that This point is weak.... What you seem to be saying is that most people would nor recognise the longer name, but will the shorter name, and I agree (similar to DDT). That's a very strong argument for the shorter name.

The redirects only solve the searching problem because LSD currently points to this article, which it should only do if this article is the primary topic of LSD, see below. This argument favours neither name, but provides evidence supporting another argument, see reply to the third point below.

Agree that precision taken alone is an argument in favour of the longer name, but it's a weak one that is rejected by current guidelines in cases where the primary topic is clear, as is the case here, see reply to second point, above.

Agree that conciseness is not a strong argument in this case, but favours the shorter name.

Disagree that the examples tetrahydrocannabinol and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid are relevant. THC is not nearly so widely recognised a term as LSD, and EDTA even less so (see my comment on that current RM). So, consistency argument irrelevant.

So my count makes it one strong argument for the shorter name, one weak argument each way, and two that don't favour either name over the other. Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Also from the survey above: I also think that encyclopedias are places where readers are reminded, for a split second, of the words behind acronyms. Strict obedience to "current Wikipedia guidelines" is for robots, not editors. [3]

Agree about strict obedience..., that's why we have WP:IAR. The problem is, where do we draw the line? If we don't give at least some notice to the guidelines, why have them? Once again there doesn't seem to be any reason not to obey the quidelines here except, dare I say, personal views. Hmmmm...

If this RM does close as not moved, we should update the guidelines to quote this as an example of an acronym which is expanded in the page title... but I'm still not quite sure why. Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lysergide

Shouldn't this article be named lysergide, after all that is the INN and as per WP:PHARMMOS and WP:MEDMOS we name drug articles after the INN. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 03:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You already know why I'm going to say no to that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Here's a source for adverse side-effects associated with massive overdose: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129381/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.176.109 (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a section of the article that answers the question of what happens if somebody takes 1,000 times the normal dose. This NIH link is a WP:PRIMARY source and probably shouldn't be used unless there are secondary sources which take an interest in the topic. Thundermaker (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Adverse effects

I noticed the expert needed maintenence template (it's kind of hard to miss after all ) - TOXNET is a suitable tertiary medical source (satisfies WP:MEDRS) which is kept up to date. I don't have time to copyedit this article, but if anyone wants to address the issues noted in that section, this is the LSD entry on TOXNET:

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+3920

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I can edit this in 4 or 10 days however long it is (noticing that it was badly done and flagged gave me the motivation to create an account but semi locked... need to wait a bit). toxnet is a collection of selected articles and looks to be neither complete nor up to date (last edit 2012), I know of a few papers published since then that are quite good. I was going to go through that entire adverse effects section and fix a few things up, in particular I'll have a bit of a look at the recent reviews and put something in for the adverse interactions bit, reword some of the discussion of various aspects so that it flows as currently I thought that in parts it was disjointed and unclear. Change or remove some of the references that appear to be author opinions on things that the paper in question did not address as this is just an inappropriate use of referencing, That quote is 60's lunacy, no credible researcher would say that now, I may paraphrase it in a discussion but it shouldn't be there as a quote. That first sentence seems irrelevant to the rest of the quote in which he talks about outrageous claims that patients made with no evidence to back up their statements and patients who hadn't even taken LSD... I'll need to read the paper but it sounds as though he was unable to adequately determine whether or not the people being questioned had ever taken the drug before. The recent extensive population analysis done by Krebs and Johansen is a very clear recent paper yet it receives only a sentence and is disjointed at the end of the part on psychosis. Finally the genetics section appears to be have been a high school project that was left unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Methylman251 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-addictive?

Is the article's unqualified claim that LSD is "non-addictive" actually correct? Certainly it doesn't have tolerance and withdrawal symptoms like some other drugs, but does that actually mean that it's not addictive? At a minimum, it seems like that claim would need a citation and and it seems like there should be more discussion about that given that it's currently a Schedule 1 drug. I'm not saying whether it's addictive or not, just saying that this point needs to be addressed in more detail since evidently not everyone agrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJS2014 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 29 December 2014

I'm having a hard time thinking of any psychedelic drug that is considered "addictive". Are you aware that psychedelics are used in therapeutic settings to treat addiction? Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of Ibogaine treatment centers in Mexico and Canada for opiate addiction and the experiments with LSD and other drugs on alcoholics; here, I'm thinking specifically of Bill W. and the influence of LSD on the formation of Alcoholics Anonymous. So, I think there is good evidence (much of which is not discussed in this comment) that shows the opposite of what you claim. That is to say, there is good evidence that psychedelics can be used effectively to treat addiction, not encourage it. And since the scheduling of drugs in the US isn't based on any science whatsoever, your appeal to it as some kind of rationale is at best, unsupported. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Be that as it may, statements need to be supported by citations per the rules set out by Wikipedia. See my below comment. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

All the anecdotal evidence is that lsd is not addictive at all. Even if someone wanted to attempt continuous use, it would lead to tolerance.

But since the counter propaganda to the DEA insists that marijuana is not addictive at all, while it is clearly strongly psychologically addictive to some people, I wouldn't blame one for thinking psychedelics might be addictive. The citation below should be adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:9:200:5EFE:D22D:78F7 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

LSD is one of the few potent recreational drugs with virtually no addiction liability. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Edit request Jan 6, 2015

There is a chart graphing the relative toxicity/dependence of various drugs. It is completely lacking any source or citation which is a major violation of WP rules. Where does the chart and its information come from? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The chart is reliably sourced, and the citation appears in the correct place. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits of January 29, 2015

I've run through this article and removed material that was poorly sourced and/or simply incorrect. It appears to have been written with heavy influence from WP:ADVOCACY editors seeking to make the point that the drug is safe and beneficial. Information provided by high quality secondary sources are far more equivocal in their assessment of this drug, showing very limited data to support therapeutic efficacy and some suggestion of serious long term effects in an unknown (but probably small) percentage of regular users. The article should reflect the content of these reliable sources.

I'd ask all editors to review the following guidelines:

• WP:NPOV - "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."
• WP:MEDRS - "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge..... Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content....Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant enough to be mentioned in other articles."

Formerly 98 (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that a lot of poorly sourced medical claims and their refs needed to be cut. Thanks for taking the time to remove them in this article; I know from experience that it's really tedious work to go through every section and fix MEDRS compliance issues in a long drug article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah so MEDRS doesn't apply to secondary resources that you disagree with because they go against your personal point of view and agenda that your trying to push? The most recent secondary resources seem to say that it is safe and beneficial, if you have a personal problem with the most recent reviews by all means contact the authors, don't remove content because your out of touch with the most recent work though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Methylman251 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Methylman, its not a question of what I "personally believe in" or of having an "agenda", this is all pretty much disallowed sources per WP:MEDRS. These were not secondary references but primary ones. Please review the definitions of primary and secondary sources, primary are not allowed for health content. You are more than welcome to add material supportive of your POV so long as they meet MEDRS requirements. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of the relevant material in that study supports a review of the literature. In other words 1) the vast majority of adverse events are related to pre-existing mental illnesses, not to the drug, and 2) LSD is an effective therapeutic tool. This has been known for 50 years, yet we see people still trying to say otherwise. This is pathetic. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Formerly actually was somewhat lenient in his content removals; there's still more material on the page which makes a medical claim and lacks a MEDRS-quality citation. If you feel that some of the content which he removed was worthwhile to keep and can find a MEDRS-quality source to support it, feel free to add it back in. As a rule of thumb, a source satisfies MEDRS if: it's a review published in a pubmed-indexed academic journal sometime in the past 5 years; it's a website or book that is a recently published clinical/academic medical/pharmacological secondary source for a statement. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I just noticed the 2nd citation in the removed content from Special:diff/644783547/644785860 is a current review that cites the 1st primary source, so this section should be ok to put back into the article. The refs could use some minor formatting first though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. Last year I removed some content that was sourced to Erowid of all places.- MrX 03:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for missing that one secondary reference, but I think it really sucks as a source for statements about the safety of the drug. The authors are incredibly credulous regarding the potential for response bias in such a survey, to the point where they don't even mention in in their "limitations of this study" discussion. It is sourced to a review now, but it seems incredibly misleading to me to present this as "the most recent data suggest a trend toward lower mental problems in those using LSD". Most scientists consider the value of a survey of this type to be very low. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I've made similar mistakes before. I didn't read the paper or even the article text before restoring that. Besides the fact that survery methodology constitutes the lowest-quality medical evidence, it looks like cherry picking to include only that paragraph from review as a whole to me; moreover, the review didn't note LSD in particular when covering that survery, so its inclusion here is a questionable issue. I'm removing it for now. There's no harm in waiting for something more definitive and better quality evidence to come along before covering this issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

 I suggest that the following be included in the Entheogen segment:

In 1966, [Timothy Leary] established the [League for Spiritual Discovery] with LSD as its sacrament. Christopher Carpenter (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a source or two. I would grab them out of League for Spiritual Discovery, but there are none.- MrX 02:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to cross-reference this to Wiki source citation. Is this not sufficient? Christopher Carpenter (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Carpenter (talk • contribs) 21:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Source: San Francisco Chronicle September 20, 1966 Page OneChristopher Carpenter (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |answered=noChristopher Carpenter (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources (see WP:CIRCULAR). I can't add the content without actually reading the source. Do you by chance have a link? After you make a couple more edits you will be autoconfirmed and be able to make the edit yourself.- MrX 03:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

|answered=no I could not find a copy of the San Francisco chronicle article on line. I was able to find this source in Google books that has the info, except it references September 1966, not the specific date: Alcohol and Drugs in North America: A Historical Encyclopedia, by David M. Fahey and Jon S. Miller, Editors, ISBN 978-1-59884-478-8, page 375Christopher Carpenter (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2015

This page has an incorrect image under the title of Bottle of liquid LSD. This image is actually The red version of this item https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ice+drop+breath+spray&rlz=1C1KMZB_enGB511GB512&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&site=webhp&tbm=isch&imgil=EUmuEuHXs57sEM%253A%253BmrxgX6P7mpfCjM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fsabratrade.eu%25252Ficedrops-products%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=EUmuEuHXs57sEM%253A%252CmrxgX6P7mpfCjM%252C_&usg=__Fn0oZURv-LthCRuQaEtiT2hJAQY%3D&ved=0CD0Qyjc&ei=QDcEVe7fL8evPMOlgaAG#imgrc=EUmuEuHXs57sEM%253A%3BmrxgX6P7mpfCjM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fsabratrade.eu%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2012%252F12%252FICEDROPS-3ML-DROPS_HIRES.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fsabratrade.eu%252Ficedrops-products%252F%3B2238%3B1614

To contain such a liquid in a bottle which has been used for this product would never happen due to impurity problems. This is my suggested change https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ice+drop+breath+spray&rlz=1C1KMZB_enGB511GB512&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&site=webhp&tbm=isch&imgil=EUmuEuHXs57sEM%253A%253BmrxgX6P7mpfCjM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fsabratrade.eu%25252Ficedrops-products%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=EUmuEuHXs57sEM%253A%252CmrxgX6P7mpfCjM%252C_&usg=__Fn0oZURv-LthCRuQaEtiT2hJAQY%3D&ved=0CD0Qyjc&ei=QDcEVe7fL8evPMOlgaAG#tbm=isch&q=liquid+lsd&imgdii=_&imgrc=PVx8Ch4BS_YVoM%253A%3B3c2-LsWTB5Cg4M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi.imgur.com%252FfEW6Y.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.reddit.com%252Fr%252FDrugs%252Fcomments%252F13vnnf%252Fliquid_lsd_sandoz_laboratories_1940%252F%3B375%3B500 Chickenj90 (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: Even if the bottle in the article is LSD, it's a poor shot for an encyclopedia. You can request the other image to be uploaded for the article here. Thank ypu Mlpearc (open channel) 03:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Self-inflicted Testicular Amputation"

Yeesh. This was cited to a paper where the abstract actually says "However, literature just provides few cases of genital self-mutilation related to the use of psychotropic substances." (See [4]) The 'secondary source' given for the claim is to a database that simply mentions the original paper exists, without discussion. At least one other source (See [5], essentially a blog, but written by a qualified expert and lecturer in toxicology) specifically describes the claim of a causal connection as "nonsense". We should not be making it sound as if it is an accepted or widely discussed 'fact' that mixing LSD and alcohol causes people to eat their own testicles on the basis of a single primary source. Revent^talk 15:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Error

"LSD can temporarily impair the ability to fully understand common dangers and therefore lack awareness to make appropriate judgments" -- it doesn't impair one's ability to lack awareness! 86.184.161.129 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It was badly worded. I've simplified the wording a bit. Sizeofint (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

this information is not useful for anyoe who is reading this sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.166.12 (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Medical Uses

There are studies, published in Nature, that show positive results for the treatment of migraine with LSD, http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060911/full/news060911-05.html, and cluster headaches: http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2011/06/lsd-alleviates-suicide-headaches — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.81.239 (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is noted in the 'Research' section, although it could use expansion. Sizeofint (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

LSD currently has no recognized medical use?

This statement seem very much at odds with the following discussions on the therapeutic value of LSD. Recent studies have indeed shown medical uses for the drug: http://www.medicaldaily.com/lsd-gets-revived-drugs-psychiatric-benefits-pushing-sale-pharmacies-over-street-306744

Furthermore, there's no citation for this statement. I would suggest is removal. Tethros (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a pilot study for a potential medical use. The general guideline (see WP:PHARMMOS) is that the use should be in at least clinical trials before the information is included in this section. It can be noted in the research section however. I have added a reference for this line and a link to the research section.Sizeofint (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Mimics can be distinguished with ultraviolet light

Please change "Different blotters which could possibly be mimics" to "Different blotters which could possibly be mimics. However, LSD can be distinguished with ultraviolet light"<ref>https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/show_image.php?i=lsd/lsd_vs_25i_nbome_uv__i2013e0345_disp.jpg</ref> Ultimately add a image of LSD under ultraviolet light as seen in the reference.

Not done: I can not locate any reliable source recommending this technique as a way to differentiate LSD from mimics. Erowid is not considered a reliable source. In 'Physical and chemical properties' the glow of LSD under ultraviolet light is noted. Sizeofint (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Physical effects

That physical effects diagram is extremely biased and bullshitty. Someone please take it down. Get your information from erowid.org, not the government propaganda ammunition collection. 46.239.208.73 (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Erowid is not a WP:MEDRS compliant source. If you have specific reliable secondary sources please provide them. Sizeofint (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Psychosis

The text should be revised to be more accurate, descriptive and a newer and more sources linked. its specific wording is odd because LSD causes psychosis(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis#Signs_and_symptoms) in everyone who use an active dosage(unless they somehow are immune to the psychedelic effects of LSD), it just lasts about 10-12 hours. The sentence in effect says "historical data suggests those who use LSD, become high on LSD", not exactly a revelation.

It should be replaced by something like "Historical data suggests that people with no known preexisting mental conditions can experience temporary psychosis from LSD use after cessation of effects, lasting up to 72 hours after ingestion of the substance. Permanent psychosis like effects in people with no preexisting mental conditions are exceptionally rare but people with known mental diseases have been shown to experience increased psychosis and other negative effects well on LSD" The wording is probably still off and little too complicated but i hope you catch my drift.

Here are some newer sample sources

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25575620

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23976938

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18512184

Ace Dill (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

LSD psychoses apparently refers to long term psychoses. The reference states "reactions that are prolonged days to months and/or require hospitalization, are often referred to as "LSD psychoses," and include a heterogenous population and group of symptoms." We do need newer sources though. I think only the last source is WP:MEDRS and even then its somewhat on the old side. Sizeofint (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of reversion

I have just undone a series of edits by Rabidz77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is possible that the edits are correct, but they changed the meaning of numerous sentences without adding new sources. If the previous versions of those sentences misrepresented the cited sources or omitted information, please say so and we can discuss it. It looks more likely to me though that the changes reflect opinions that are not directly based on sources. Looie496 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2015

There's a mistake in the 4th section. As stated by medscape (the 50th source) "... neuroleptic medications, such as haloperidol (Haldol), may have adverse psychomimetic effects and thus are not indicated in LSD intoxication." which basically translates to don't use haloperidol it might make the psychotic symptoms worse.

I would suggest:

Overdose

Reassurance in a calm, safe environment is beneficial. Agitation can be safely addressed with benzodiazepines such as lorazepam or diazepam. Neuroleptics such as haloperidol should be avoided for they might worsen the symptoms. LSD is rapidly absorbed, so activated charcoal and emptying of the stomach will be of little benefit, unless done within 30-60 minutes of ingesting vast amounts of LSD. Sedation or physical restraint is rarely required, and excessive restraint may cause complications such as hyperthermia (over-heating) or rhabdomyolysis.<ref name=Medscape>{{cite web|url=http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1011615-treatment|title=LSD Toxicity Treatment & Management|work=Medscape|author=Brenner S & Corden TE|date=March 22, 2012|accessdate=April 27, 2012}}</ref> Geommt (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Made a slight modification, to say it has "adverse effects" rather than "makes it worse" so we're not interpreting the source too heavily. Stickee (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Just some suggestions on the HPPD section

Been doing a lot of research on HPPD and found some stuff that might be helpful to add here. Firstly, it is generally considered HPPD is linked to or a part of visual snow syndrome. Not sure if Vimeo is a good source, but here is an interview with Dr. Henry David Abraham, a leading expert on HPPD, saying that it is most likely a form of visual snow or at least linked to it. This article from Dr. Mark Borgini from Psychology Today also refers to HPPD as a form of visual snow and brings up another topic that should be mentioned. A 2012 study by Dr. Christoph Schankin at the University of Carolina has concluded that it is unlikely that hallucinogen use causes visual snow (therefore, it is unlikely, according to this study, that HPPD exists in the way it is written in the DSM-IV). The article does not cite a source, but I believe this is what it is referring to. Also, the current last sentence of the HPPD section states that J.H. Halpern's 2003 review of the HPPD literature concludes that HPPD is uncommon and affects an already at-risk group. This isn't written anywhere in the review and is assuming a lot. What the review does conclude is that previous studies into HPPD were carried out poorly and filled with confounding variables, particularly when it comes to poly-drug use, as well as being unclear about the definition of flashbacks and their relation to HPPD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.162.100 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. We'd have to find some better WP:MEDRS sources but this could be worth adding. I'm currently occupied with other articles but perhaps someone else can add it. Sizeofint (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis

Synthesis needs expanded, preferably with equations and reaction mechanisms, and explanations with reagents and solvents with purification, unless that is illegal or whatever. Jamez Z23 (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no legal problem, but Wikipedia policy is not to give procedural information. It views itself as an encyclopedia, not a how-to book. See WP:NOTMANUAL.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The content can be added in an encyclopedic manner. See Amphetamine#Synthesis for example. What we cannot do (per policy, not legality) is write step by step instructions for LSD synthesis. Sizeofint (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You only have to mention it is purified, and what solvents are added, not how to do it. Like it is purified by distillation, but not how to do the distillation or what temperature or whatever. Only a basic overview. The main addition would be the synthetic reaction equations (reaction equations / mechanisms are informative, not instructional)

It is synthesised from lysergic acid, for example using trifluoroacetic acid to make lysergic trifluoroacetic acid, followed by addition of diethylamine to form lysergic acid diethylamide. You could use reaction equations instead of just instructing how to do it, and leave it at that if you prefer.

They did that with amphetamine and methamphetamine, so I don't see why not.

Jamez Z23 (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lysergic acid diethylamide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080623111640/http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/photo_library2.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/photo_library2.html#lsd

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

History

This is grand little article and always a pleasure to see all the hard work that is put into creating these pages. It seems however that the history of the modern chemists that put forth so much effort into developing this medication, studying it, bringing forth new intermediates, and pioneering more cost effective and faster reactions have faded from the memory of the world. Some of these chemist even gave up their freedom in order to promote understanding of the nature of this substance in a time when research groups would not touch the topic. I see the mention of Tim Skully but it was actually Nicholas Sand that was the true chemist that engineered the reactions used, and it was ALD-52 Skully was promoting not LSD proof via court records. Where is the chemist William Henderson known as Dr Flowerchild throughtout the world for developing hundreds of intermediates and argon reactions that know find themselves being used in the academic and pharmaceutical structures of society, the same society that seeks to hide his existence and donation to science. Casey Hardison and William Pickard are two more chemist that risked everything to bring this substance to the world and for us to gain insight into its structure. Without these hidden away chemists there would not be a movement to push for therapeutics during the time span from the 80s to the new millennium when the benefits of this substance was most suppressed. Simpletruths (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is History of lysergic acid diethylamide Sizeofint (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, there is somewhat of a history mentioned but it would seem that some expounding upon the topic should be desired for the sake of academic research assistance and to simply reward other chemist in words for their contributions to science that has brought about a new generation that now have the tools to produce better therapeutic applications for this medication resultant only because of the unmentioned historical chemist denied by the article. Simpletruths (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies upon this topic. I did go to the link provided by Sizeofint and discovered some history on the subject. In light of this I shall bow out on making any suggestions on change that may encompass this article ans proceed to weigh in on the article found to explain the history there of. Thank you very much for your time and guidance. Simpletruths (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Medical uses

LSD-assisted psychotherapy for anxiety associated with a life-threatening disease: a qualitative study of acute and sustained subjective effects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25389218 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadutch (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a good point. However, current practice is that medical uses of illegal drugs not yet accepted by the scientific community uses go under "research," not "medical use" (see for example MDMA). I personally disagree with this practice, because medical uses can be notable even if they are not condoned by scientific consensus or government regulation. In particular, I believe it is inconsistent with the listing "off-label" uses of legal drugs under "medical." Using, for example, trazodone as a sleep aid is, aside from legal implications, not substantively different from using MDMA or LSD as an adjunct in psychotherapy. What do people think? Acone (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Suicide/agressive behavior not true

Psychedelics not linked to mental health problems or suicidal behavior: a population study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25744618 The sentence stating it is linked with suicide and aggressive behavior should be deleted, it is disinformative.

It looks like this has been done, for the record. Acone (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Medical uses

We're sitting at two reverts. The proposed change is

"As of 2016, there are no medical indications for LSD; consequently, it is not used in clinical medicine for any purpose."

to

"As of 2016, there are no widely accepted medical uses for LSD; consequently, it is currently not used in clinical medicine for any purpose."

I believe the first is more precise. The latter implies there are some accepted medical uses for LSD. However, LSD is not currently prescribed or recommended for the treatment of any condition. Sizeofint (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Anxiety/Panic

I added this under Dangers. Anxiety and panic attacks are the most common LSD-related adverse effects. I'll add some references, or maybe somebody else could expand on this.

Also under dangers, there are death attributed to people's reaction to the drug, ie they do something while high that causes death. ie jump out window, cut wrist etc...

Panic attacks can occur if the environment becomes spooky or unsafe for the individual, Make sure you surround yourself with good people and in a safe environment away from dangerous equipment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:500:7402:B8B0:162:9949:EAE5 (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The article history doesn't show any edit of the sort you describe. Since the article is semi-protected (due to high levels of vandalism and counterproductive edits), you wouldn't be able to edit it directly without registering an account. If you would like to suggest an edit, you can do so here, but note that all edits need to be supported by reputable published sources. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There should be some reference in the overdose section relating tho the ability of Lisuride to competitively agonize and rapidly reverse the psychadelic effects of LSD due to competitive binding at the 5HT1A receptors which are not oligomerized with the mGlu2 receptor. Since Lisuride does not act on the subtype of receptors (which are the active sight of the hallucinogenic activities) it does not produce the hallucinogenic effects of related tryptamine derivatives and acts as an antagonist to the effects of such drugs despite being an agonist of the 5HT1A sight. Due to the potent dopaminergic effects it is not normally used (nor is it approved) for this purpose due to the high risk increased agitation and aggressive behaviors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.201.139 (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you know of a review article that discusses this? Sizeofint (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirect from Fake LSD to this article subhead "Mimics"

I created a redirect the other day of "Fake LSD" to the article 25I-NBOMe but after a discussion there, I (and someone else) thought it would be be better to redirect here to the sub-section Mimics. Problem with this is I had to make an anchor in the sub-heading, which someone might remove, not knowing what it is there for. If you Google "Fake LSD", most of the articles point to 25I-NBOMe, which has been in the news recently and led to a spike in views (12k from average of <1k) at the NBOMe article. Maybe we could also change the sub-section heading to "Fake LSD (Mimics)"? Thoughts? Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The only way an anchor typically gets deleted is if the entire section is removed, since the whole purpose of a section anchor is to ensure that incoming links remain targeted on that section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing Error

Paragraph 3 in the History section states: "In the early 1960s the use of LSD and other hallucinogens was advocated by new proponents of consciousness expansion such as Leary, Huxley, Alan Watts, Aldous Huxley and Arthur Koestler, ..."

Huxley is listed twice, once by last name only and then again by his full (linked) name. Its just a simple overlooked editing error but the first entrance in which he is mention by last name should be deleted for fluency.

[note: the emboldening of the mentions of Huxley obviously does not occur in the original text and has been added for the convenience of the reviewing editor/s.]

Now fixed -- thanks for pointing out the error. Looie496 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)