I haven’t gotten far enough in the comments to see it, but I’m a bit miffed that rich assholes can admit to doing lsd on the national media and be fine, while poor people go away for years for a couple grams of marijuana…
Hi, just in case you were wondering, drugs aren’t by default good. They carry risks of all sorts, from killing your liver, cancer, death, addiction, a crutch to avoid dealing with shit, or psychological problems. Too many problems to list. The drug community is usually the first to blame their own when something goes wrong by citing failure to follow some broscience or other old-wives wisdom, or just act like it’s not a problem caused by the drug, just the user. What, didn’t you do a full family psychiatric history before taking (drug) and having a psychotic break? Well, damn…not the drug’s fault.
All that said, I’m not anti-drug, if people want to do that stuff that’s up to them.
No different than someone trying to sell me on drinking more or that alcohol is ok. Ok, maybe I’ll have an extra beer or three, and if someone says that alcohol isn’t great…they’re right. Even if I don’t really want to hear it.
Yes we seem to have gotten to the point of liberalism that “drugs are good”. No, illicit drugs are generally not good, but there are circumstances where they can be useful or better than the legal alternative. They need to be regulated and treated like a health issue rather than a criminal one.
There are absolutely research papers from legitimate sources that have investigated people’s LSD use and the long-term effects of its use. A ln internet search using those words will get you what you want. “Long term effects of LSD”.
We aren’t discussing marijuana. We’re discussing LSD and there’s no reason to divert the conversation to some other drug without discussing the papers at hand, if you’re a subject matter expert I’d appreciate your take on why the research is inadequate or insufficient for your needs.
I was easily able to find 3 papers specifically dealing with the long term effects of LSD use that did not have Hoffman as an author nor cite his work. The papers were from the NIH, Science Direct, and the APA Psyc Net, I’m sure you’ll find them easily if you bother to look.
Lots of drug bashing folks here
I haven’t gotten far enough in the comments to see it, but I’m a bit miffed that rich assholes can admit to doing lsd on the national media and be fine, while poor people go away for years for a couple grams of marijuana…
Hi, just in case you were wondering, drugs aren’t by default good. They carry risks of all sorts, from killing your liver, cancer, death, addiction, a crutch to avoid dealing with shit, or psychological problems. Too many problems to list. The drug community is usually the first to blame their own when something goes wrong by citing failure to follow some broscience or other old-wives wisdom, or just act like it’s not a problem caused by the drug, just the user. What, didn’t you do a full family psychiatric history before taking (drug) and having a psychotic break? Well, damn…not the drug’s fault.
All that said, I’m not anti-drug, if people want to do that stuff that’s up to them.
No different than someone trying to sell me on drinking more or that alcohol is ok. Ok, maybe I’ll have an extra beer or three, and if someone says that alcohol isn’t great…they’re right. Even if I don’t really want to hear it.
Yes we seem to have gotten to the point of liberalism that “drugs are good”. No, illicit drugs are generally not good, but there are circumstances where they can be useful or better than the legal alternative. They need to be regulated and treated like a health issue rather than a criminal one.
They can’t make money from their racket if they fix the problem by treating it as a health and social issue.
Is there any group discussing long term effects of lsd
“Group”?
Like what?
There are absolutely research papers from legitimate sources that have investigated people’s LSD use and the long-term effects of its use. A ln internet search using those words will get you what you want. “Long term effects of LSD”.
It’s not the kind of research we have in Marijuana. Mostly due to legalisation.
Most of the critical experiments around lsd were done by Hoffman himself
Edit: specifically speaking, controlled studies
We aren’t discussing marijuana. We’re discussing LSD and there’s no reason to divert the conversation to some other drug without discussing the papers at hand, if you’re a subject matter expert I’d appreciate your take on why the research is inadequate or insufficient for your needs.
I was easily able to find 3 papers specifically dealing with the long term effects of LSD use that did not have Hoffman as an author nor cite his work. The papers were from the NIH, Science Direct, and the APA Psyc Net, I’m sure you’ll find them easily if you bother to look.
idk I feel he’s giving drugs a bad name tbh
deleted by creator
That’s a good thing
deleted by creator