A question about LSD.

There are certain things that do not go together, eg alcohol and dogs

Before giving any animal any drugs ensure it is designed for that animal. If not certain see a vet. The effect on humans on a drug can be different from the effect on another animal eg dogs.
 
ponderingturtle said:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,770756,00.html

That seems to show that 297 mg of LSD is not good for an elephant.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this is a quote from a rather strangely worded newpaper account of the story the only actual quote is,

"It appears that the elephant is highly sensitive to the effects of LSD - a finding which may prove to be valuable in elephant-control work in Africa."
Click to expand...

Which the story quotes from a Science article, it leaves unanswed the following standard questions:

-what premorbid conditions did the elephant have
-what was the cause of death, was it directly related to the dose of LSD or, indirectly , or not at all
-what controls did they use

-Why did they do it, it seems rather stupid to try to evoke mating behavior by adminitereing a dose of LSD, perhaps the hormones and phermones of a female in esterous would have worked.
-Who did these two researchers work for?
-What are thier credentials?
 
rjh01 said:
Tips.
Never admit to any illegal activity unless you have been found guilty of a charge or have charges outstanding.

Lie detector tests are worthless. Do not even agree to take one. If you do have to take one for any reason you need to look out for the control questions. Before answering them induce stress into your body, like biting your tongue HARD. Then when you lie on the real questions the amount of stress you will have will be no more than the control questions.
Click to expand...

Polygraph examiners know to look for things like this. It's better to find some way to induce pain that isn't visible from the outside, such as a tack in your shoe.

(this according to Poundstone's book "Big Secrets", or maybe it was the sequel, "Bigger Secrets".)
 
Just stumbled on this thread in a search for the word "music".

My sympathies.

I skimmed all the posts, and they covered almost everything. Some points I didn't hear anyone else making:

-If your son hasn't had any flashbacks by now, he's not going to have them.
The whole "Manchurian Candidate" thing or walking-timebomb thing is a complete myth. If your son has flashbacks (which do occur with some people) he would know it already. For some people, mild flashbacks occur and they simply aren't troubling. (I'm thinking of Ken Kesey, who said he could always tell his flashbacks from reality.)

-Creepy old W. Burroughs made the point somewhere that, for some people, LSD has the lasting effect of making them more aware or self-conscious about their perceptions, because, prior to taking LSD, they simply took perception for granted. So the effect is a matter of learning something about the potential instability of one's own mind. A useful lesson? Burroughs thinks it can permanently open up a kind of sensitivity to art. I honestly don't know.

-I agree strongly that the best course of action is to lie. Since I hate to lie, this would put me in a bind. I wouldn't apply for this kind of job. I wouldn't be a candidate for the Supreme Court, either.

-Maybe your son's best real contribution could still be as a musician. It takes all kinds.

-Some people have been completely derailed by LSD (Syd Barrett, for example) and some people I know. This is MUCH more likely if they made the stupid mistake of taking a high dose. John Lennon survived much high dosing because he had a high tolerance from taking LSD every day. After 4 or 5 days, the LSD had virtually no effect. It's not clear to me whether the people who got "derailed" had pre-existing dispositions to mental illness.

Just my anecdotal 2 cents. Sorry if I missed something in the other posts.
 
Juliette said:
I have tried to find information that either proves or disproves the idea that a person - almost 20 years later - is subject to flashbacks. Can any one here help me find some answers?

Thanks everyone,
Julia
Click to expand...

Whoever made the decision is immoral, dishonest and hopelessly misinformed about drugs.

Immoral and dishonest for lying about the consequences of this individual being truthful and and hopelessly misinformed because people just do not get flashbacks after 20 years....not unless they took a ludicrously high dose and have been having flashbacks for the last 20 years.

This story is sad, sad, sad.

Geoff
 
JamesDillon said:
I thought that an LSD "flashback" was caused by a trace amount of the drug remaining in the fat tissue of the user for years or perhaps decades, to be later absorbed into the bloodstream, causing another drug-induced episode? Or is that just a myth they taught us in junior high school?
Click to expand...

It's a myth. Flashbacks tend to occur to people who did themselves serious psychological harm when they took the trip. This happens very infrequently indeed, and only to people who took large doses or had a pre-existing pyschological problem.
 
schplurg said:
I know a person who was just refused from admittance to the Highway Patrol because she smoked pot one time 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

There is something seriously wrong with your country. This is beyond absurd. I need a new word for it. Uber-absurd.
 
One of my best friends got his secret clearance after admitting to experimenting with coke and smoking pot all through high school and college. Eventually, he got his top secret clearance and worked on 'black' projects for many years. However, a person he knew was refused a clearance because he experimented with cocaine too many times. He was told that once or twice was 'experimenting', more than that was 'using'. With this in mind, I really don't believe a former coke addict could get a secret clearance.

As for lying about your drug use, a background investigation will include interviews with your friends, family, and neighbors. If you were a known drug user, the investigators will find out. You might be willing to lie to protect yourself, but your friends probably aren't going to take that risk for you. I've been interviewed by those little men in the black suits and you don't want to lie to them.
 
jon said:
Alcohol is a thousand times more dangerous than drugs like cannibis, LSD or steroids? Got any info to back that up?

Surely it depends on the quantity taken, as much as anything else: a glass of red wine every day or two may actually bring health benefits and seems unlikely to do much harm, while the other drugs you mentioned can all have nasty (side) effects, again depending on dosage, length of use etc...
Click to expand...


I think it depends on the person. I know lots of people who have got into trouble with drugs. But exactly which drugs cause a problem to which people is not easy to predict or explain. Some people end up with a coke problem, but hardly ever touch alcohol. Others are dreadful alcoholics but manage to quit smoking. Many, many people touch no illegal drugs but smoke themselves into an early grave (cigarette smoking). My own biggest problem has been hashish (not grass). I've only met one person who had an LSD problem, and he was on the inside of a psychiatric hospital. He told me he took LSD every day for six months. His mind was blasted to hell, and I doubt he ever recovered.
 
jon said:
Thanks - that's interesting to know. Is this still disputed, or is there a consensus on this?
Click to expand...

It's not true. Cannabis/Marajuana increases the chance of lung cancer when smoked. It may not cause a cancer risk when eaten.

Cigarrette smoking actually reduces the risk of Parkinson's disease and one type of cancer (endometrial cancer) but increases the risk of about twenty others:

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact02.html
 
schplurg said:
I know a person who was just refused from admittance to the Highway Patrol because she smoked pot one time 10 years ago. Even though she is in excellent physical shape, tested very highly, and went throught the entire training program etc. This was the final step...she thought honesty would be the best thing. She is devestated.
Click to expand...

Lying about drug use is what is expected for law enforcement applicants if they really want the job. Not lying means not getting the job.

The biggest pot dealer when I was in high school went on to become a cop and made the papers with the biggest pot bust ever in town. Pretty ironic. Rumor has it that another cop said, "I've never seen so much pot in my life." and he responded, "I have." I don't think it's true, but it is funny.

I can guarantee that he didn't admit how he earned the money to buy a Camaro for cash.
 
UndercoverElephant said:
http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

Smoke in general is full of a large concoction of chemicals, most of which do your lungs no good at all. Breathing in smoke from just about any burning material will increase the risk of lung cancer.

Just type "smoking cannabis cancer" into google and follow any link you like.
Click to expand...


When I ask for "proof" I didn't mean bias websiteswho use state sponsored material dedicated to Drug abuse as a reference. When I ask for proof I mean scientific studies published in respected peer reviewed journals. Moreover just because normal smoke causes cancer or Marijuana smoke has carcinogens doesn't mean marijuana actually causes cancer.

Here's a study done showing NO Cancer-Marijuana Connection.

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html
 
Last edited:
Dustin said:
Here's the first link I find (Mentioning the study I mentioned above) when I type in ""smoking cannabis cancer" in google.

Fred Gardner: Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
Click to expand...

Err......sounds like dangerous nonsense to me. Why on earth should tobacco smoke increase the risk of about thirty different diseases and cannabis smoke cause none? I am sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Tobacco is just a plant, which happens to contain nicotine. Nicotine is not the prime cause of the health problems - it just causes the addiction. Now you (and these people) are seriously trying to tell me that smoking another plant, which contains a very similar concoction of chemicals, doesn't increase the risk of disease. Utter nonsense, IMO. I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind would believe it. I am not a person who is anti-dope. I have been a heavy cannabis user for 20 years. I simply cannot accept that cannabis smoke is harmless whilst tobacco smoke is lethal. It's just absurd.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom