Legalize LSD to advance innovation and discovery

[barts]

Drawing on the article The Heretic by Tim Doody, a strong case can be made to legalize LSD so that people involved in work that requires creativity can achieve wither better breakthroughs or achieve them more quickly.

LSD absolutely had helped [the scientists used in the experimental study] solve their complex, seemingly intractable problems. And the establishment agreed. The 26 men unleashed a slew of widely embraced innovations shortly after their LSD experiences, including a mathematical theorem for NOR gate circuits, a conceptual model of a photon, a linear electron accelerator beam-steering device, a new design for the vibratory microtome, a technical improvement of the magnetic tape recorder, blueprints for a private residency and an arts-and-crafts shopping plaza, and a space probe experiment designed to measure solar properties.

People who have used LSD responsibly report intellectual breakthroughs,

Francis Crick confessed that he was tripping the first time he envisioned the double helix. Steve Jobs called LSD “one of the two or three most important things” he’d experienced. And Bill Wilson claimed it helped to facilitate breakthroughs of a more soulful variety: Decades after co-founding Alcoholics Anonymous, he tried LSD, said it tuned him in to the same spiritual awareness that made sobriety possible...

Also see LSD: The Geek's Wonder Drug?

When Kevin Herbert has a particularly intractable programming problem, or finds himself pondering a big career decision, he deploys a powerful mind expanding tool -- LSD-25.

"It must be changing something about the internal communication in my brain. Whatever my inner process is that lets me solve problems, it works differently, or maybe different parts of my brain are used, " said Herbert, 42, an early employee of Cisco Systems who says he solved his toughest technical problems while tripping to drum solos by the Grateful Dead -- who were among the many artists inspired by LSD.

Notables who have admitted to using LSD and crediting it with helping them be more creative and better thinkers include: Francis Crick, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, John Lilly, Richard Feynman, and Kary Mullis.

There is sufficient evidence, I submit, to legalize LSD so that it can be used as a tool to enhance innovation and creativity. The current US policy, which influences drug policies worldwide is not only stupid (as all its drug policies are) but also a detriment to progress.

A final point, I can only wonder what it is about LSD that the United States, in particular, finds so fearful. Clearly it is a drug that if used under responsible conditions can produce profound benefits.

[sulh-i-kul]

There are not only scientifical/techincal but the more subjective benefits you alluded to. These are not welcome by authoritarians.

Recreational drugs are not banned on their merits anyway. Being a recreational drug other than alcohol is enough for it to be banned and once a drug is branded as recreational, it takes a mountain of medical evidence for it to be seen as something more than just a recreational drug.

[LetThereBe]

As someone that opposes prohibition in general, I don't think something should be legal only when we have good reasons for it to be. Rather it should only be illegal if there are overwhelming reasons against it's legality.

So yeah, even if there weren't real arguments in favor of legalizing LSD I would still be for it.

[Senor Hoint]

I don't think LSD should be widely available.

And that's coming from someone who...maybe....has used it a few times.

I agree with LetThereBe, though, in generally opposing prohibition.

[The Decider]

People who have used LSD responsibly report intellectual breakthroughs

How does one use LSD "responsibly?" One microdot a week? A day? Every 15 minutes? Is there some blood LSD level that distinguishes responsible from irresponsible behavior? Although I'm sure that some geniuses have upped their creative potential with LSD, I'm also certain that not a few sub-geniuses fried their brains permanently on the stuff. I'm not ready to support full legalization yet.

[sulh-i-kul]

(while waiting for the conference...)

Why do you want an absolute definition?
I guess for most people "responsibly" would mean in an appropriate setting with medical supervision, as with other drugs.

[ruksak]

I'm a recreational marijuana smoker and someone whom did LSD frequently as a young man. I had some great times taking LSD and to this day I feel it did, in fact, enhance the way I looked at the world, authority, death, love, hate, music, art and on and on.

However, myself and a friend took a little too much once (2 hits instead of 1, turns out it was double dipped blotter) and we slipped into a horrific oblivion. A typically wondrous and terrific experience turned into a waking nightmare that I could not escape from for 10 hours. To make myself clear, the first thing I did when I came down enough to walk and operate a fucking doorknob was ....I went to the bathroom to change my underwear because I swore I had shit my pants. I swear on it. Turns out, that too was a hallucination.

For hour upon hour it sounded like 100 TV's were turned up as loud as the volume allowed, all on different channels, when in reality there wasn't any ambient noise at all. Helicopters, police and violence surrounded me, even though it was just me and my friend.

Just a small, nearly immeasurable amount of LSD can cause the most profound horror one could possibly experience in life. This insidious drug that I once swore a kinship, a love for, is in reality a psychotic, insidious beacon of terror.

NO, in the name of all that isn't stupid, every drop of LSD should be cast into the deepest, hottest volcano on the face of Earth. All of it. It's terrible, horrifying debilitating and deadly as shit, and the average person without high-grade scientific equipment cannot even measure the difference between "just enough" and "way too much".

And some morons want to proliferate it's usage on a catastrophic scale because it helps certain people think outside the box? Fuck you. Fuck you in the ear you short-sighted hippie fucking douche-bags. (<<not aimed at anyone on this forum)

[barts]

The notion that because something, be it LSD or anything for that matter, can have negative effects on some individuals should preclude its use is absurd. Should such a view prevail, almost everything would be banned. Should we decide whether or not we use automobiles or aircraft because there are horrific accidents with these machines?

It's a weak basis, I suggest, to want something banned for the sole reason that a few individuals had unpleasant experiences, but not so unpleasant they are not alive and fit today to speak about them.

Also, it's a poor way forward, I suggest as well, that decisions are made based on what frightens us rather than what enlightens us. Irrational fear and avoidance usually lead to little of value except more fear.

[ruksak]

The notion that because something, be it LSD or anything for that matter, can have negative effects on some individuals should preclude its use is absurd. Should such a view prevail, almost everything would be banned. Should we decide whether or not we use automobiles or aircraft because there are horrific accidents with these machines?

People use transportation because it is essential, going back to when horses were the primary form of transportation, there were still accidents. There are assumed risks with many things in life. However, people take acid to get off, to get high. Getting high is not a necessity.

I smoke weed because the assumed risk is extraordinarily minimal. I cannot smoke a few hits more than usual and be pulled into a world of nightmarish terror from which I cannot escape for hours on end.

It's a weak basis, I suggest, to want something banned for the sole reason that a few individuals had unpleasant experiences, but not so unpleasant they are not alive and fit today to speak about them.

There are many people that aren't alive and fit to tell you how much they wish they hadn't jumped through a window because they imagined a bear was hunting them in their 1 bedroom 3rd story apartment.

Also, it's a poor way forward, I suggest as well, that decisions are made based on what frightens us rather than what enlightens us.

"A poor way forward" for the health and well being of our citizens would be to give the 'thumbs up' to a substance that causes you to imagine you are dying and that the walls themselves are conspiring toward your death.

Irrational fear and avoidance usually lead to little of value except more fear.

An "irrational fear" is imagining your friends face has caught on fire and attempting to "help him" by pounding his face with a cinder-block. Something that this chemical (LSD) is fully capable of.

Laws should protect citizens from real danger. Laws should help create a society in which people (especially young people) are sparred from their own ignorance by helping to remove the danger.

It's a weak basis, I suggest, to want something banned for the sole reason that a few individuals had unpleasant experiences

You mean like guns? oh.....that's right, you want guns banned but not LSD? Because guns are only for killing and LSD is super-fun, right?

Guns save lives, preserve freedom and provide food. LSD gets you high. Where are your priorities, I must ask?

[barts]

Guns save lives, preserve freedom and provide food. LSD gets you high. Where are your priorities, I must ask?

Consider the above statement. It uses highly selective information about guns and about LSD in order to support a fallacious, preconceived notion that was entirely a product of irrational fear. Consequently, the statement can reasonably be rejected as nonsense.

One can only be in awe at how effective fear can be in distorting some people's views and rendering them less capable of rational thinking--a characteristic often used by those who would control others to serve their own ends.

My priorities? They do not include self-delusion and fallacious arguments founded in fear, in particular fears that were never real but rather the product of pure illusion.

For the record, I say all this as someone who has used acid, and guns for that matter.

[barts]

I'm aware that frightened people are often less than capable of dispassionately considering facts. When this occurs, the medical profession labels the behavior a phobia "a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational."

A good source for drug information is Erowid, "a member-supported organization providing access to reliable, non-judgmental information about psychoactive plants, chemicals, and related issues. We work with academic, medical, and experiential experts to develop and publish new resources, as well as to improve and increase access to already existing resources. We also strive to ensure that these resources are maintained and preserved as a historical record for the future."

On the matter of LSD (Acid) Fatalities / Deaths,

Put simply, LSD does not cause death at recreational or therapeutic doses (less than 500 ug / 0.5 mg). While there are substantial reasons why users should be cautious about LSD use (see LSD Health), death is not a major risk.

Less than a handful of human deaths have been tied in the medical literature to the pharmacological effects of LSD, and none of these deaths have been unquestionably attributable to LSD's actions. The clearest case was documented by Fysh et al. in 1985; however, they fail to explain the circumstances of the death, only discussing the toxicological assessment, casting some doubt that the only explanation for the death was LSD.

Estimates of lethal doses of LSD are higher than 10 mg (10,000 ug) administered orally, more than 100 times a normal moderate dose of LSD (100 ug). The administration of this amount would require the ingestion of more than 200 units of street blotter, which typically contain about 50 ug of LSD (as of late 2010). LSD has been used by tens of millions of people over the last 50 years and has been administered to tens of thousands of patients in psychotherapeutic settings (mostly prior to 1960).

Some suicides have been tied to the use of LSD, though it is difficult to positively link an individual's choice to take their own life with their past use of LSD. In general, LSD is not reported to substantially increase the risk of suicide and those who do commit suicide after taking LSD are likely to have suffered from pre-existing suicidal tendencies.

Some deaths have been associated with inebriated or combative behavior while under the influence of LSD, including falling or jumping from a height or dying after being beaten by police.

Because the numbers of fatalities associated with LSD are so low, it is difficult to determine the risk of death associated with LSD. Erowid estimates that the risk of death from taking LSD is probably less than one death per million LSD use sessions, with risk of death higher among those predisposed to suicide and among those without a sober sitter present to help avoid accidents or fights.

I prefer to make judgements based on facts rather than irrational fears and phobias, just like most "short-sighted hippie fucking douche-bags".

[ruksak]

One can only be in awe at how effective fear can be in distorting some people's views and rendering them less capable of rational thinking
They do not include self-delusion and fallacious arguments founded in fear, in particular fears that were never real but rather the product of pure illusion.

I have to ask, are you choosing your words to purposely reflect the effects of LSD? If not, that sure would be some coincidence.

The hypocrisy stifling. You think guns should be banned because some people get hurt by them yet LSD should be legal and the fact that it hurts some people should not factor into the banning of the substance?

I'm not leaning on fear as an argument. I'm talking about facts, reason. My first hand experience with the terror of taking a few micro-particles more than what was intended had me writhing in horror of inanimate objects. Anything capable of such tremendous distortion and fear, anything capable of wracking the human mind to such a profound extent should be seriously looked at by lawmakers as perhaps something they wish not to have proliferated within society.

Do you not think it is the responsibility of lawmakers to protect citizens from dangerous substances?

This is why people don't take liberals seriously. They want to ban guns on the grounds that they are dangerous yet they want to legalize hard drugs on the basis of personal choice. Hard drugs cause people to enter a state of mind that comes with a total loss of control, making them a danger not only to themselves, but to everyone in society.