Medical Studies Prove The Extensive Damage LSD Does To The Body & Mind

Albert Hoffman, the "father" of LSD.
Albert Hoffman, the "father" of LSD.

In a recent series of Hubs on LSD and the effects on pregnant women I was challenged to prove my statements that LSD was extremely harmful. Well... here we go.

Science. 1971 Apr 30;172(982):431-40.
LSD and genetic damage.
Dishotsky NI, Loughman WD, Mogar RE, Lipscomb WR.

Of nine studies in vitro, six have indicated some degree of induced chromosomal breakage after exposure to LSD; three failed to confirm these results. The damage, when found, was generally of the chromatid type, arising during or after DNA synthesis.

The results of early chromosome studies suggested that true genetic damage might be a consequence of LSD exposure. The comprehensive evidence from studies on drosophila indicates no mutagenic effect from 0.28 to 500 microg of LSD per milliliter and a definite mutagenic effect from 2,000 to 10,000 microg/ml; this is consistent with a threshold response or a sigmoid dose-effect relation.

Circular dichroism experiments suggested that the specific mechanism of action of LSD on DNA may be a direct interaction resulting in conformational changes in the DNA helix.

Early chromosomal studies implicated LSD as a potential cause of congenital malformations, fetal wastage, and germinal chromosome damage.

In a study of human pregnancies, those exposed to illicit LSD had an elevated rate of spontaneous abortions.

This early study gets a little bit wound up in the differences between ingesting pure LSD and illicit LSD and thus obfuscates its own conclusions. So let's go onto some more interesting later studies...

Brain Res Mol Brain Res. 2003 Mar 17;111(1-2):182-8.
Dynamic changes in prefrontal cortex gene expression following lysergic acid diethylamide administration.
Nichols CD, Garcia EE, Sanders-Bush E.
Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, 8148 Medical Research Building Three, Nashville, TN 37232-8548, USA.

Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is a psychoactive drug that transiently alters human perception, behavior, and mood at extremely low doses. Certain aspects of the behavior elicited by acute doses of LSD closely resemble symptoms of mental disorders such as schizophrenia.

We find that the gene response to LSD is quite dynamic. The expression of some genes increases rapidly and decreases rapidly, while other genes change more gradually. Dose-response studies show two classes of expression; gene expression maximally stimulated at lower doses, versus gene expression that continues to rise at the higher doses.

Here is an instance of a recent study, just a few years old, which clearly states that LSD plays havoc with your genes, and the next study shows how LSD affects the fetal brainstem directly...

J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1996 Jan;55(1):114-26.
Developmental changes in [3H]lysergic acid diethylamide ([3H]LSD) binding to serotonin receptors in the human brainstem.
Zec N, Filiano JJ, Panigrahy A, White WF, Kinney HC.
Department of Pathology, Children's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

This study provides baseline information about the quantitative distribution of [3H]LSD binding to serotonergic receptors (5-HT1A-1D, 5-HT2) in the human brainstem, from midgestation through maturity, with a focus upon early infancy. Brainstems were analyzed from 5 fetuses (19-25.5 weeks postconception), 5 infants (42-55.5 weeks postconception), and 3 mature individuals (4, 20, and 52 years).

The highest levels of [3H]LSD binding occurred prenatally throughout the brainstem. At all ages, the highest relative binding localized to the rostral raphe. A marked decline in [3H]LSD binding occurred between the midgestation and infancy in brainstem regions involved in control of cardiovascular function, respiration, and pain.

It is clear by this study that LSD scrambles all sorts of developing neural functions in the fetal brainstem. Now let's look at the effects of LSD on the female reproductive system...

Eur J Pharmacol. 1993 Jan 5;230(1):115-7.
Lysergic acid diethylamide is a partial agonist at 5-HT2 receptors in ovine uterine artery of late pregnancy.
Zhang L, Dyer DC.
Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames 50011.

d-Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) produced dose-dependent contractions (EC50, 17.9 +/- 2.1 nM) on isolated ovine uterine artery of late pregnancy, which were competitively antagonized by ketanserin. The maximal contraction to LSD was 51% of the 5-HT response. LSD competitively antagonized (pA2 9.21) contractions produced to 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT). The results indicate that LSD is a partial agonist at 5-HT2 receptors in ovine uterine artery.

So now we see that there is a basis to believe that LSD affects the female reproductive system in mammals. But it gets even more interesting with this study...

Neuroendocrinology. 1983 Jun;36(6):462-7.
Progesterone enhancement of lysergic acid diethylamide and levo-5-hydroxytryptophan stimulation of the copulatory response in the female rat.
Sietnieks A, Meyerson BJ.

Copulatory behavior in the ovariectomized rat, i.e. the lordosis response (LR) on being mounted by a male, can be induced by administration of either estrogen alone or estrogen followed by progesterone. LR has been shown to be inhibited by lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) in certain doses (greater than or equal to 50 micrograms/kg) and by Levo-5-hydroxytryptophan (L-5-HTP) (greater than or equal to 2.5 mg/kg). This effect was recently found to be enhanced by increasing doses of progesterone.

Small doses of L-5-HTP (0.25 and 0.05 mg/kg) stimulated the LR and the influence of progesterone was the same as for small doses of LSD.

It's fairly obvious that even in mammals which have had their ovaries removed, the effect of LSD mimics some hormonal functions. But the severe physiological effects of LSD don't stop there...

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1983 Jan;80(2):569-73.
Heat shock protein in mammalian brain and other organs after a physiologically relevant increase in body temperature induced by D-lysergic acid diethylamide.
Cosgrove JW, Brown IR.

A physiologically relevant increase in body temperature from 39.7 to 42.5 degrees C, which was generated after the intravenous injection of D-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), caused the induction of synthesis of a 74,000-dalton heat shock protein in the brain, heart, and kidney of the young adult rabbit.

LSD drives a mammalian body into an overheated state to such a degree that heat shock can ensue. I'm sure that is perfectly healthy for pregnant women! Again, NOT! But let's look at what LSD does to your immune system...

Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 1994 Feb;16(1):23-40.
Immunological consequences of in vitro exposure to lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).
House RV, Thomas PT, Bhargava HN.
IIT Research Institute, Chicago, IL 60616.

It was demonstrated that LSD is able to suppress the proliferation of B-lymphocytes; the production of the cytokines IL-2, IL-4, and IL-6; and the induction of cytotoxic T-lymphocytes at a concentration of 100 microM. In vitro exposure to LSD had differential effects on natural killer (NK) cell activity, with significant enhancement of both basal and IL-2-augmented NK cell function at concentrations between 0.0001 and 0.1 microM, and suppression of NK response at 100 microM. These results demonstrate that LSD may have a direct effect on components of the immune system at concentrations that may be reached upon human exposure.

OK, so LSD pretty well wipes out your immune system. Given the correlation between drug users and HIV-positive status, I'm sure that this is just what the doctor ordered to seropositive individuals. NOT! Now let's look at what LSD does to your brain...

Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1980;69(3):315-7.
Lysergic acid diethylamide: morphological study of its effect on synapses.
Kemali M, Kemali D.

A morphometric analysis of the effect of LSD on synapses was performed in the habenulae and the interpeduncular nucleus of the frog.

LSD-treated frogs had a higher total area of synaptic contact than control frogs. Exocytosis profiles were observed only in LSD-treated frogs. Other qualitative changes in the ultrastructural characteristic of synapses were appreciable after LSD administration.

So LSD physically changes the way your brain's synapses connect with each other. I don't know about anyone else, but I think that the shape of my synapses is best left the way my maker made 'em...

J Neurochem. 1986 May;46(5):1436-43.
Characterization of a translational inhibitor isolated from rabbit brain following intravenous administration of d-lysergic acid diethylamide.
Fleming SW, Brown IR.

Intravenous administration of d-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to rabbits results in a transient inhibition of brain protein synthesis in vivo and in vitro. A translational inhibitor that appears in the postribosomal supernatant fraction of cerebral hemispheres following LSD administration was partially purified by gel filtration on Sephadex G-150 and precipitation with 60% ammonium sulfate. This inhibitor, which was proteinaceous, reduced the translational capacity of an initiating cell-free protein synthesis system derived from brain. It also inhibited a messenger RNA-dependent reticulocyte lysate programmed with brain polysomes and a globin-synthesizing reticulocyte lysate system.

LSD inhibits the synthesis of protein in your brain, which is an essential brain function. And let's look at what a brain on LSD does to the person it inhabits...

Am J Ophthalmol. 1976 Apr;81(4):413-6.

Severe solar maculopathy associated with the use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).
Fuller DG.

A 23-year-old man sustained severe macular damage by sun gazing during a hallucinogenic drug-induced state. Sequential fundus photography and fluorescein angiography documented prominent focal injury to the retinal pigment epithelium.

Not to mention that LSD serious affects your serotonin response and thus can not only lead to significant behavioral problems but also neutralizes any of the serotonin uptake inhibitors which are commonly prescribed. Here are just some of those studies...

Neuropsychobiology. 1999 Nov;40(4):183-7.
Binding of [(3)H]lysergic acid diethylamide to serotonin 5-HT(2A) receptors and of [(3)H]paroxetine to serotonin uptake sites in platelets from healthy children, adolescents and adults.
Sigurdh J, Spigset O, Allard P, Mjörndal T, Hägglöf B.
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Norrland University Hospital, Umeâ, Sweden.

Mol Pharmacol. 1992 Nov;42(5):826-30.
Unsurmountable antagonism of brain 5-hydroxytryptamine2 receptors by (+)-lysergic acid diethylamide and bromo-lysergic acid diethylamide.
Burris KD, Sanders-Bush E.
Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-6600.

J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1991 Sep;258(3):891-6.
Lysergic acid diethylamide, but not its nonhallucinogenic congeners, is a potent serotonin 5HT1C receptor agonist.
Burris KD, Breeding M, Sanders-Bush E.
Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.

Neuropsychopharmacology. 1990 Apr;3(2):137-48.
Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) administration selectively downregulates serotonin2 receptors in rat brain.
Buckholtz NS, Zhou DF, Freedman DX, Potter WZ.
National Institute of Mental Health, Laboratory of Clinical Science, Bethesda, MD 20892.

And while we're at it, let's throw in a few more...

Arch Ophthalmol. 1996 Jan;114(1):47-50.
Persistent palinopsia following ingestion of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).
Kawasaki A, Purvin V.
Midwest Eye Institute, Methodist Hospital of Indiana, USA.

Pharmacol Res Commun. 1988 May;20(5):435-6.
Effects of D-lysergic acid diethylamine on serotonin, adrenaline and dopamine evoked aorta contractions.
Silvestrini B, Palmery M, Severini C.
Institute of Pharmacology and Pharmacognosy, University of Rome, La Sapienza, Italy.

Circ Res. 1980 Jun;46(6 Pt 2):I64-9.
Pharmacological assay of cardiac H2-receptor blockade by amitriptyline and lysergic acid diethylamide.
Angus JA, Black JW.

Experientia. 1975 Mar 15;31(3):328-30.
Lysergic acid diethylamide affects blood flow to specific areas of the conscious rat brain.
Goldman H, Fischer R, Nicolov N, Murphy S.

Wiad Lek. 1975 Mar 1;28(5):383-6.
[Some psychotoxicological problems exemplified by lysergic acid diethylamide]
[Article in Polish]
Kocur J.

Mutat Res. 1974 Dec;26(6):523-8.
The mutagenic effect of lysergic acid diethylamide. III. Evaluation of the genetic risk of LSD in man.
Srám RJ, Goetz P.

Mutat Res. 1974 Dec;26(6):513-6.
The mutagenic effect of lysergic acid diethylamide. I. Cytogenetic analysis.
Goetz P, Srám RJ, Zudová Z.

This is only a precursory examination of the medical literature on LSD effects. There are hundreds more studies to quote and the vast majority of them stand as clear and evident scientific proof that LSD is extremely harmful to almost every single mammalian and human anatomical, physiological, and psychological function. Even such a very basic overview of the current science is enough to scare the living daylights out of any intelligent person, pregnant woman or not, to not even remotely consider that LSD is in any way safe or beneficial in any way, shape or form.

Now we can start a CIVILIZED debate on the ISSUES. We'll talk FACTS. I won't attack anyone personally and no one will attack me personally, or I will simply not publish the comment. The rules are clear. Let's go.

More by this Author


Comments 364 comments

PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Hi Hal,

Glad to see you put this together. One request to make a real discussion of the topic available to any interested. Could you please edit and post actual links to the studies you cited so that myself and others can review them without having to wade through myriad sites and studies to find the same studies. I have been able to find a couple, but others seem non-existant. Not saying you fabricated them, just that they are very obscure and have proven difficult to find.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

Hello. None of these are obscure or nonexistent and abstracts for all of them are readily available through the websites of the NIH. You might want to try accessing HubPages through another IP as this one you're using has been marked Spam and I don't get notifications of replies. Thanks.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Glad to see you can still receive and post my comments. Unfortunately I have no control over the wan IP as that is controlled by my ISP.

Before I respond to the research I feel it is important to establish a few important foundational concepts regarding this exchange of ideas.

First I ask that you post all my comments in this exchange in their entirety. (Readers understand that Mr. Licino has full control over what comments appear.) I am expecting you to abide by the rules regarding comments you set forth in your ending statement and I shall do the same.

Second it is vitally important to understand at the outset that we are not discussing the legal status of LSD, just the physiological and psychological risks involved in its therapeutic and recreational use. Current drug laws in America are not based on harm a substance causes, but rather on its accepted medical efficacy as determined by the AMA and FDA. This strategy has been adopted by most other nations around the world. Therefore just because LSD or any other substance is classified a Schedule 1 drug does not mean that it is by virtue of that scheduling dangerous and harmful. This often is not understood and erroneously leads to the assumption that if a substance is illegal then it must be harmful. If that were the case then alcohol and tobacco would certainly both be schedule 1 drugs.

I am also going to provide links to any and all resources when available that you or I refer to in this debate as that is the fair and accepted manner of presenting any research. Any high school student knows you have to cite your references, and I trust the majority of your readers are intelligent enough to look at the actual research and determine for themselves if our interpretations are valid or not. I ask that you please keep all links intact.

I will address all research quoted in your hub and your remarks concerning each. I will then provide further research sources that support my viewpoint. There is a plethora of information out there about LSD. It is without a doubt the most widely researched psychedelic substance known, even with the almost forty year restriction on research. Shall we begin. (this will probably consist of a number of comments over a period of a few days)


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Let's take a look at the research cited and your accompanying remarks. (Note for readers clarification, in vitro = lab samples outside of the living organism; I.E.: cells in a petri dish, in vivo = cells or samples from a living organism where biological processes come into play. This is a very important distinction when dealing with this type of research)

Science. 1971 Apr 30;172(982):431-40.

LSD and genetic damage.

Here is the link so readers can review the study themselves rather than just accepting your or my interpretation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4994465

Seems you left out a little bit of important information;

Of nine studies in vitro, six have indicated some degree of induced chromosomal breakage after exposure to LSD; three failed to confirm these results. The damage, when found, was generally of the chromatid type, arising during or after DNA synthesis. This damage, with one exception, was the result of concentrations of drug and durations of exposure which could not be achieved in humans with reasonable dosages. There did not appear to be a dose-response relation. The magnitude of damage, when found, was in the range encompassing the effects of many commonly used substances. The absence in vitro of excretory and detoxifying systems present in vivo, as well as several negative reports, cast doubt on the relevance of in vitro results

Your statement; "This early study gets a little bit wound up in the differences between ingesting pure LSD and illicit LSD and thus obfuscates its own conclusions."

is a little misleading. Here is what was concluded regarding the difference between pure LSD and illicit "street" LSD;

The frequency of individuals with chromosomal damage reported among illicit drug users was more than triple that associated with the use of pharmacologically pure LSD. We conclude that chromosome damage, when found, was related to the effects of drug abuse in general and not, as initially reported, to LSD alone. We believe that pure LSD ingested in moderate dosages does not produce chromosome damage detectable by available methods.

Basically what that means is that in a multi drug using individual any results obtained relating to chromosomal damage are inconclusive and any damage detected cannot be attributed solely to LSD conclusively.

also;

The results of early chromosome studies suggested that true genetic damage might be a consequence of LSD exposure. The comprehensive evidence from studies on drosophila indicates no mutagenic effect from 0.28 to 500 microg of LSD per milliliter and a definite mutagenic effect from 2,000 to 10,000 microg/ml; this is consistent with a threshold response or a sigmoid dose-effect relation. We believe that LSD is, in fact, a weak mutagen, effective only in extremely high doses; it is unlikely to be mutagenic in any concentration used by human subjects. Circular dichroism experiments suggested that the specific mechanism of action of LSD on DNA may be a direct interaction resulting in conformational changes in the DNA helix. These changes are unlikely to result in a decrease of internal stability sufficient to cause breakage of chromosomes, but they may be the physical basis of the weak mutagenicity. Early chromosomal studies implicated LSD as a potential cause of congenital malformations, fetal wastage, and germinal chromosome damage. First reports of a teratogenic effect in hamsters and rats have not been confirmed. A review of 15 rodent studies indicated a wide range of individual, strain, and species susceptibility to the effects of LSD. The applicability of such investigations to man is doubtful.

and this study concluded;

While there is no evidence that pure LSD is teratogenic in man, the use of any drug during pregnancy requires that its potential benefits significantly outweigh its potential hazards. From our own work and from a review of the literature, we believe that pure LSD ingested in moderate doses does not damage chromosomes in vivo, does not cause detectable genetic damage, and is not a teratogen or a carcinogen in man.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

The next abstract you cite;

Brain Res Mol Brain Res. 2003 Mar 17;111(1-2):182-8.

Dynamic changes in prefrontal cortex gene expression following lysergic acid diethylamide administration.

Nichols CD, Garcia EE, Sanders-Bush E.

Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, 8148 Medical Research Building Three, Nashville, TN 37232-8548, USA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12654518?ordina...

only states;

We previously identified a small collection of genes within the rat prefrontal cortex that respond to LSD. Many of the products of these genes are involved in the process of synaptic plasticity. In the current report, we present a detailed analysis of the expression of these genes within the brain using RNase protection analysis. We find that the gene response to LSD is quite dynamic. The expression of some genes increases rapidly and decreases rapidly, while other genes change more gradually. Dose-response studies show two classes of expression; gene expression maximally stimulated at lower doses, versus gene expression that continues to rise at the higher doses. The role of the 5-HT(1A) and 5-HT(2A) receptor in mediating the increases in gene expression was examined in a series of experiments using receptor specific antagonists. Most expression increases were due to activation of the 5-HT(2A) receptor, however expression of two genes had neither a 5-HT(1A) nor a 5-HT(2A) receptor component.

I notice two important things about this abstract, first they are talking about rat prefontal cortex, not human, a fact that seems to be absent from your quote.

Second it in no way arrives at or proposes a conclusion, either positive or negative, only that the effects were noted. That was found to be the case with all related abstracts linked on that page. No conclusion as to harm, only that it is a very useful avenue in studying the biological basis for certain types of mental illness.

Therefore your remark concerning this reference;

Here is an instance of a recent study, just a few years old, which clearly states that LSD plays havoc with your genes

it does not clearly state any such thing, so your remark is without foundation or merit based on the research you quoted.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

The next one;

J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1996 Jan;55(1):114-26.

Developmental changes in [3H]lysergic acid diethylamide ([3H]LSD) binding to serotonin receptors in the human brainstem.

Zec N, Filiano JJ, Panigrahy A, White WF, Kinney HC.

Department of Pathology, Children's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8558166

Is very similar to the previous in that it makes no conclusion as to any harm, only that it binds to certain receptor sites in the brainstem and how that changes with regard to age of the subject.

Your statement;

It is clear by this study that LSD scrambles all sorts of developing neural functions in the fetal brainstem.

is again completely without merit or validity based on the research quoted. All molecules that have an effect in the human nervous system bind to different receptor sites. Whenever you smell a rose the molecules that give it fragrance bind to receptor sites in the olfactory bulb, otherwise you would not smell a thing. No scrambling of fetal brain tissue is proven or even remotely suggested, this research is only to verify the location and concentration of receptor sites that LSD binds too.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

This one;

Eur J Pharmacol. 1993 Jan 5;230(1):115-7.

Lysergic acid diethylamide is a partial agonist at 5-HT2 receptors in ovine uterine artery of late pregnancy.

Zhang L, Dyer DC.

Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames 50011.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8428600?log$=ac...

Simply states what I have already said in the previously mentioned hub which comments you have chosen to delete. LSD and all ergotamine derived drugs are uterine vaso-constrictors as well as induce uterine contractions. Ergot fungus from which LSD is synthesized had long been used by midwives to aid in child delivery by inducing labor. Some of the drugs that Dr. Hoffman developed while working with ergot alkaloids have save thousands of lives by reducing uterine hemorrhaging during childbirth. If you will recall in my previous comments that were removed, I stated that those two reasons alone, diminished uterine and placental bloodflow and uterine contractions, were enough of a concern to discourage any pregnant women from using them due to the increased risk of miscarriage. With that said I shall disregard any further research concerning increased risk of miscarriage in the discussion. It is a well established action of LSD and related substances and therefore not subject to debate. I would further advise any women who are pregnant or trying to conceive to stay clear of LSD as well as any drug, legal or not.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

This study;

Neuroendocrinology. 1983 Jun;36(6):462-7.

Progesterone enhancement of lysergic acid diethylamide and levo-5-hydroxytryptophan stimulation of the copulatory response in the female rat.

Sietnieks A, Meyerson BJ.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6603590

Is quite frankly completely irrelevant to humans because the dosages of LSD used were ridiculously high.

LR has been shown to be inhibited by lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) in certain doses (greater than or equal to 50 micrograms/kg) or In contrast, small doses of LSD (5-30 micrograms/kg)

Again this study provides no conclusive results as relates to humans.

According to literature from Sandoz Labs regarding LSD dosages used for therapeutic studies the average effective dosage range is between 50 and 200 micrograms total, or 1ugs/kg and for more resilient cases 2-4ugs/kg. So you see this study was conducted giving the rats on average 25 times a dosage a human would use. When dosages were lowered to 1ug/kg the effects mentioned were non-detectable. Bear in mind that LSD is very psychically active in humans at dosages as low as 25ug and a dosage of 250ugs is a very potent amount. The average dosage of available illicit LSD according to DEA records is between 20-80ugs per dosage unit, with 50ugs being common. http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/dea/pubs/lsd/L... Giving any substance in concentrations amounting to tens and even hundreds of times the normal dosage is going to have profound adverse effects, regardless if it's LSD or milk.

I am also going to disregard any further research cited that is based upon testing dosages that have absolutely no correlation to dosages used by humans therapeutically or recreationally. I will make note of such, but any results obtained by such methodologies are irrelevant to this debate.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

I will continue to review the research you have quoted and post more comments in a few days.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

I will publish all these comments, as this is a very valid debate which must be aired in public. I will not reply until you get to the end of your commenting on the various studies, and then we'll discuss at length. Thank you.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 7 years ago from Ohio, USA

Someone should join PB's fan club.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

I'll join! :) Actually as you can see by my statement at the end of the Hub text, I'm playing this one STRAIGHT and not engaging in my usual banter. This is a serious issue, PB is serious about his side of the story, and I will give him more than enough opportunity to outline his case. Then, I will respond in detail!


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

this study;

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1983 Jan;80(2):569-73.

Heat shock protein in mammalian brain and other organs after a physiologically relevant increase in body temperature induced by D-lysergic acid diethylamide.

Cosgrove JW, Brown IR.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6572907

Again it appears that some revealing passages are absent from your quote, the entire abstract;

"A physiologically relevant increase in body temperature from 39.7 to 42.5 degrees C, which was generated after the intravenous injection of D-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), caused the induction of synthesis of a 74,000-dalton heat shock protein in the brain, heart, and kidney of the young adult rabbit. A marked increase in the relative labeling of a 74,000-dalton protein was noted after analysis of both in vivo labeled proteins and cell-free translation products of isolated polysomes. A temporal decrease in the synthesis of this protein was noted as LSD-induced hyperthermia subsided. The 74,000-dalton protein, which is induced in various organs of the intact animal at a body temperature similar to that attained during fever reactions, may play a role in homeostatic control mechanisms"

Namely that the effect on the mentioned protein subsided as the temp of the rabbit returned to normal, no lasting effect, and that it amounted to no more than a slight fever.

I had to do a little research into heat shock proteins and found this simple explanation; http://www.antigenics.com/products/tech/hsp/ . Heat shock proteins come into play in response to any stressor in living cellular tissue;

"Heat shock proteins (HSPs), also called stress proteins, are a group of proteins that are present in all cells in all life forms. They are induced when a cell undergoes various types of environmental stresses like heat, cold and oxygen deprivation."

The 74,000 dalton reference is the particular protein involved molecular weight.

In a nutshell the only thing this research abstract indicates is that LSD elevates body temperature. Not that it imposes the risk of any type of dangerous "heat shock" as your comment would imply;

"LSD drives a mammalian body into an overheated state to such a degree that heat shock can ensue."


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Perhaps it would be good at this point to address just what the physiologic effects of LSD are in humans at normal dosage ranges. Here is an excerpt from a Life magazine article;

Vol. 60, No, 12 March 25, 1966

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/magazines/lifel...

What are the physiological effects of LSD?

"These are surprisingly mild, considering the monumentally disruptive nature of the psychic effects. There is an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, but not enough to be alarming. The blood sugar also goes up slightly. There may be other sporadic symptoms: nausea, chills, flushes, irregular breathing, sweating of palms, trembling of extremities. These manifestations are all transitory. Appetite is affected, but mainly because the subject is too enthralled by his own sensations to be interested in food; later he is ravenously hungry. Sleep is virtually impossible until at least eight or 10 hours after the whole LSD episode is over. The pupils of the eyes are widely dilated so that dark glasses are often worn even at night for protection against the light. With an average dose, .0001 of a gram, the effects begin within an hour and last for eight to 10 hours. A bigger dose speeds up and intensifies the experience, increasing the possibility of panic."

This pretty much sums it up in plain English. Sounds a lot like having a double shot of espresso from Starbucks. If it induced hyperthermia to the point of causing "heat shock" I'm sure there would be a great deal of literature about that effect, there isn't.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Let me point out a trend I have noticed during my research on this topic. That is the absence of any substantially non-biased research concerning LSD or it's possible beneficial uses in humans after the early 1970's. The reason for this is actually due to the rather biased and paranoid conduct of the DEA and its influence regarding research grants dealing with Scheduled substances. Approval to synthesize, grow or some way procure the a Schedule1 substance has to be approved by the DEA and FDA among other government agencies. There were numerous animal studies conducted on LSD, but no human studies. Also if a study was developed with the intention of exploring possible beneficial aspects of LSD, it was met with mountains of red tape and delays. Conversely if the goal of the research was to establish any harmful effects, the approvals were granted much easier. The current state of research concerning marijuana has been facing these hurdles as well. Luckily the need for actual human studies has been acknowledged by the FDA,NIDA and the DEA as well and research into possible benefits of psychedelic substances has once again been allowed. Here is a very informative article about this and sheds some light on these agency's views concerning the actual risks or lack thereof these substances present. http://island.org/ive/2/doblin1.html It is for this reason that there appears to be a plethora of animal studies involving LSD in the recent literature, but scant human studies. Bear in mind readers that very often in order to elicit behavioral responses in animal studies massive doses of LSD are utilized and therefore have very little relevance to human use of LSD. This point is summarized in this excerpt from Dr. Hofmann's outstanding work; LSD-My Problem Child. A must read for anyone seriously interested in this topic.

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/child2.htm

"Some years ago reports appeared in the scientific literature and also in the lay press, alleging that damage to chromosomes or the genetic material had been caused by LSD. These effects, however, have been observed in only a few individual cases. Subsequent comprehensive investigations of a large, statistically significant number of cases, however, showed that there was no connection between chromosome anomalies and LSD medication. The same applies to reports about fetal deformities that had allegedly been produced by LSD. In animal experiments, it is indeed possible to induce fetal deformities through extremely high doses of LSD, which lie well above the doses used in human beings. But under these conditions, even harmless substances produce such damage. Examination of reported individual cases of human fetal deformities reveals, again, no connection between LSD use and such injury. If there had been any such connection, it would long since have attracted attention, for several million people by now have taken LSD."

Also in-vitro research with LSD has also been deemed to be of very little value when considering in-vivo effects of LSD by most reputable researchers. The reason for the invalidity in relating in-vitro research as pertains to a living organism is clearly pointed out in another excerpt from Dr. Hofmann's aforementioned work;

"LSD is absorbed easily and completely through the gastrointestinal tract. It is therefore unnecessary to inject LSD, except for special purposes. Experiments on mice with radioactively labeled LSD have established that intravenously injected LSD disappeared down to a small vestige, very rapidly from the bloodstream and was distributed throughout the organism. Unexpectedly, the lowest concentration is found in the brain.

It is concentrated here in certain centers of the midbrain that play a role in the regulation of emotion. Such findings give indications as to the localization of certain psychic functions in the brain.

The concentration of LSD in the various organs attains maximum values 10 to 15 minutes after injection, then falls off again swiftly. The small intestine, in which the concentration attains the maximum within two hours, constitutes an exception. The elimination of LSD is conducted for the most part (up to some 80 percent) through the intestine via liver and bile. Only 1 to 10 percent of the elimination product exists as unaltered LSD; the remainder is made up of various transformation products.

As the psychic effects of LSD persist even after it can no longer be detected in the organism, we must assume that LSD is not active as such, but that it rather triggers certain biochemical, neurophysiological, and psychic mechanisms that provoke the inebriated condition and continue in the absence of the active principle."

Simply put the concentration of LSD in the living organism rapidly drops and the cellular tissue is not in contact or effected by its presence for anywhere near as long as is found in in-vitro research.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Ok, back to the quoted research, this study;

Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 1994 Feb;16(1):23-40.

Immunological consequences of in vitro exposure to lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).

House RV, Thomas PT, Bhargava HN.

IIT Research Institute, Chicago, IL 60616.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8169321

Without copying the full text of the abstract let me point out two very important things concerning this research. First it is research conducted in-vitro and as such actually has little relevance to use in a living human. Second the conclusion presented in the abstract; "These results demonstrate that LSD MAY HAVE a direct effect on components of the immune system at concentrations that MAY BE reached upon human exposure." is far from being conclusive so your interpretive remark;

"OK, so LSD pretty well wipes out your immune system."

is yet once again without any validity given the research quoted.

I am also disappointed by your subsequent comment

"Given the correlation between drug users and HIV-positive status, I'm sure that this is just what the doctor ordered to seropositive individuals."

That comment in itself seems to indicate that you are misinformed about drugs and drug usage, and cannot refrain from interjecting your own emotionally charged prejudice and bias into what is supposed to be a mature neutral debate about the FACTS. Fact is that individuals who use LSD and other psychedelics are for the most part far removed from the stereotypical I.V. drug user.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

On to the next;

Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1980;69(3):315-7.

Lysergic acid diethylamide: morphological study of its effect on synapses.

Kemali M, Kemali D.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6774374

This is of questionable value in this debate because the abstract lacks some important data; amount of LSD used and length and frequency of exposure. Without those facts any correlation to human usage is spurious at best. Although I do take notice of two lines in the abstract;

"Other qualitative changes in the ultrastructural characteristic of synapses were appreciable after LSD administration."

Unfortunately like so much of the research you have cited and others that I have been reading, no conclusions are given as to the positive or negative nature of such observations, only that they have been observed.

The next I find particularly intriguing;

"LSD-treated frogs had a higher total area of synaptic contact than control frogs."

That is in actuality not a necessarily negative finding. The more synaptic connections between neurons results in higher more efficient inter-neural communication. How do you think learning is achieved. By increasing the synaptic connections. That is also how individuals recover from brain trauma and stroke, by neurons growing new synaptic connections and utilizing areas of the brain for new functions. Here are some resources about this.

http://www.giamusic.com/music_education/feier_musi...

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/2...

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/39/...

Actually the importance of dendrite growth and synaptic connections, the more the better, is such a widely known concept in brain biology and function that your comment;

"So LSD physically changes the way your brain's synapses connect with each other. I don't know about anyone else, but I think that the shape of my synapses is best left the way my maker made 'em..."

Causes me to really question if you understand the research and some of its implications. I do not intend that as a derogatory statement, just an honest inquiry

So if LSD induces the brain to grow more synaptic connections between neurons could it be inferred that it could possibly increase I.Q. ?


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Next one;

J Neurochem. 1986 May;46(5):1436-43.

Characterization of a translational inhibitor isolated from rabbit brain following intravenous administration of d-lysergic acid diethylamide.

Fleming SW, Brown IR.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3633951

does sound ominous, but this related abstract;

J Neurochem. 1984 May;42(5):1420-6. Effect of intravenous administration of D-lysergic acid diethylamide on initiation of protein synthesis in a cell-free system derived from brain. Cosgrove JW, Brown IR.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6707642

Sheds a little further light on the topic. I direct readers to the final two sentences.

"An initiating cell-free protein synthesis system derived from brain was utilized to demonstrate that the intravenous injection of D-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to rabbits resulted in a lesion at the initiation stage of brain protein synthesis. Three inhibitors of initiation, edeine, poly(I), and aurintricarboxylic acid were used to demonstrate a reduction in initiation-dependent amino acid incorporation in the brain cell-free system. One hour after LSD injection, there was also a measurable decrease in the formation of 40S and 80S initiation complexes in vitro, using either [35S]methionine or [35S]Met-tRNAf. Analysis of the methionine pool size after LSD administration indicated there was no change in methionine levels. Analysis of the formation of initiation complexes in the brain cell-free protein synthesis system prepared 6 h after LSD administration indicated that there was a return to control levels at this time. The effects of LSD on steps in the initiation process are thus reversible."

The effects noticed are not permanent nor long lasting. I assume that there is no true danger to humans from the effect noticed.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

This one;

Am J Ophthalmol. 1976 Apr;81(4):413-6.

Severe solar maculopathy associated with the use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).

Fuller DG.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC121487...

"A 23-year-old man sustained severe macular damage by sun gazing during a hallucinogenic drug-induced state. Sequential fundus photography and fluorescein angiography documented prominent focal injury to the retinal pigment epithelium."

If you read the entire transcript you will find out the man in question was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. The 15 year old girl also mentioned was as well determined to be emotionally unstable prior to ingesting LSD. These and related incidents, discounting the myths and urban legends which abound, speaks more to the mental stability and general stupidity of the individuals involved rather than to any effect of LSD. By the way they both regained normal visual function and acuity after some months.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

I will have more responses in a few days.

Then I will proceed to cite research supporting my position as well as research about the known risks of psychedelics. No substance is without possible harm.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

Keep them coming, PB. Thanks for all your effort. I appreciate it.


Sandy 7 years ago

I am very dedicated woman to eating healthy and making sure i take all my vitamins and minerals. After reading an article on "kiwi drug" about 5-htpI have being going back and forth with the decision on weather or not to try out these natural pills for a extra boost of happiness. Has anyone else tried these out yet? Would like to hear some feed back first before I go ahead and purchase them


donotfear profile image

donotfear 7 years ago from The Boondocks

I'm glad you touched on this subject. It would be most helpful if it were written in a bit more simple language. I would be curious to see what your study is on the long-term effects of LSD on the person who consumes it. What I mean is this: back in the 70's there was quite a bit of acid floating the streets. Not all of it was pure, but had some small concentration of LSD in it. Now some may say that these doses, oftain containing strictine, weren't GOOD acid. But I can say from experience, and according to my own resistance level, that the effects of the LSD on my system (yes, I took it at age 14, 15, 16 a few times)remained apparent. Although it wasn't particularly STRONG acid, I had some after effects such as seeing tracers, people's faces distorted, turning pink & puple for about a year afterwards. Incidently, as an adult, I continue to have a visual misrepresentation of objects, from time to time with no apparent cause or pattern. I believe it may possibly be long time after effects. I'm not ashamed to admit I indulged in the use of LSD, though I DO NOT glorify the experience in any way. I would also hope to use my experience to warn others about it. I'm merely trying to determine if some of my visual 'tracers' are connected to the LSD experience of the 70's.


Me 7 years ago

I am very interested to hear your thoughts on what PB had to say Hal. PB has been pretty thorough it seems.


yellowcab 7 years ago

I am glad that there is finally a serious two sided discussion about the realistic effects of LSD.This war on drugs has proven to be a massive failure and a complete waste of government resources.Thanks to both of you for putting this discussion up in a fair and respectful manner


Sami_David 7 years ago

This is a very interesting debate, I would like to Thank PB Smith for stepping up to the plate, not everyone who takes LSD is a spun-out hippie. But like Grandpa always said too much of anything aint good for nothing...


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

Sandy: There hasn't been a thorough enough study on 5-HTP to conclude whether or not there are significant side effects. Still, any serotonin-modifying substance like this definitely should never be taken without a physician's approval.

Everyone: I have agreed to let PB have his say, and I will not comment until he has had his full chance. Then, and only then, we will engage in a superlative debate.


Phrenism profile image

Phrenism 7 years ago

Hey, donotfear. What you have is called HPPD, don't worry about it. It is very common after heavy psychedelic use, I also have it but it has faded over time. HPPD isn't a sign of brain damage, so don't be concerned.

To the OP:

I appreciate your complilation of studies against LSD, however 90% of those are government funded and there is about a 10:1 ratio of non-government funded studies that dubunk the majority of those. Especially involving chromosomal damage.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd.shtml


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

This study;

Neuropsychobiology. 1999 Nov;40(4):183-7.

Binding of [(3)H]lysergic acid diethylamide to serotonin 5-HT(2A) receptors and of [(3)H]paroxetine to serotonin uptake sites in platelets from healthy children, adolescents and adults.

Sigurdh J, Spigset O, Allard P, Mjörndal T, Hägglöf B.

Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Norrland University Hospital, Umeâ, Sweden.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10559700

Is yet another study that simply shows how and where LSD binds to specific receptor sites, and how that changes with age. It implies no harm being done by LSD. The main conclusion based on the abstract would seem to be

"These developmental changes might have an impact on the effect of treatment with serotonergic drugs in children and adolescents".

In reviewing this and other research one thing is becoming increasingly clear. A lot of this research is not actually research focusing on LSD, but rather on serotonin receptors, as is demonstrated by this excerpt from a similar study;

Experientia. 1988 Feb 15;44(2):142-5.

Human platelet 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors: binding of [3H]-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). Effects of chronic neuroleptic and antidepressant drug administration.

Grahame-Smith DG, Geaney DP, Schachter M, Elliott JM.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2894321

"A method has been developed to study 5-HT2 receptor binding sites on platelets utilising [3H]-LSD and more recently 125I/LSD."

This study has nothing whatsoever to do with LSD itself, it is just being used due to its affinity for binding to the same receptor sites as Serotonin 5-HT(2A).

The main reason why there is a large number of studies in the literature about LSD and Serotonin is not because of LSD, but because of the huge number of anti-depressant drugs in existence and it would appear as though LSD is being used as a marker in studies on these anti-depressant drugs.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

this one;

Mol Pharmacol. 1992 Nov;42(5):826-30.

Unsurmountable antagonism of brain 5-hydroxytryptamine2 receptors by (+)-lysergic acid diethylamide and bromo-lysergic acid diethylamide.

Burris KD, Sanders-Bush E.

Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-6600.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1359397

and this one;

J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1991 Sep;258(3):891-6.

Lysergic acid diethylamide, but not its nonhallucinogenic congeners, is a potent serotonin 5HT1C receptor agonist.

Burris KD, Breeding M, Sanders-Bush E.

Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1679849

and finally this;

Neuropsychopharmacology. 1990 Apr;3(2):137-48.

Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) administration selectively downregulates serotonin2 receptors in rat brain.

Buckholtz NS, Zhou DF, Freedman DX, Potter WZ.

National Institute of Mental Health, Laboratory of Clinical Science, Bethesda, MD 20892.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1969270

Are all simply research into the mechanism of how LSD functions and possibly how it elicits the effects it does. Again as with most research you quoted there is absolutely NO assertion as to harm to a human who ingests LSD, only a look at how it works.

The last study is yet again completely irrelevant due to the dosages used;

"Daily administration of LSD [130 micrograms/kg (0.27 mumol/kg) intraperitoneally (IP)] for 5 days"

May I remind readers that I have already noted that the recommended dosage for humans is between 1-4 micrograms /kg, NOT 130 micrograms/kg as was administered in this study. Even then the only thing that study shows is how rapidly tolerance builds to LSD.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

This one;

Persistent Palinopsia Following Ingestion of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD)

Aki Kawasaki, MD; Valerie Purvin, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114(1):47-50.

http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/...

"Results

All three patients experienced prolonged afterimages (palinopsia) during LSD intoxication and have continued to be symptomatic up to 3 years after they ceased to ingest the drug. Results of neuroophthalmologic and neurologic examinations and neuroimaging and electrophysiologic studies were normal.

Conclusions

We have described three patients in whom persistent palinopsia developed following ingestion of LSD. Clinicians should inquire about past LSD use in all patients who initially have seemingly spontaneous, isolated palinopsia. Recognition of this distinctive clinical syndrome associated with LSD use might avoid unnecessary anxiety and excessive diagnostic tests for patients with this disorder."

Is thus far the only research you have mentioned that even vaguely suggestions any harmful side effects from LSD. I refer to it later.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

This reference;

Pharmacol Res Commun. 1988 May;20(5):435-6.

Effects of D-lysergic acid diethylamine on serotonin, adrenaline and dopamine evoked aorta contractions.

Silvestrini B, Palmery M, Severini C.

Institute of Pharmacology and Pharmacognosy, University of Rome, La Sapienza, Italy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3420151

and this one

Circ Res. 1980 Jun;46(6 Pt 2):I64-9.

Pharmacological assay of cardiac H2-receptor blockade by amitriptyline and lysergic acid diethylamide.

Angus JA, Black JW.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6103762

are empty save for the abstract title, but for those interested here is the paper for the last reference; http://www.lycaeum.org/research/researchpdfs/3275....


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

And these;

Experientia. 1975 Mar 15;31(3):328-30.

Lysergic acid diethylamide affects blood flow to specific areas of the conscious rat brain.

Goldman H, Fischer R, Nicolov N, Murphy S.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1116541 empty link

actual paper; http://www.springerlink.com/content/v6441pq6742477... again this research comes to no conclusions.

Wiad Lek. 1975 Mar 1;28(5):383-6.

[Some psychotoxicological problems exemplified by lysergic acid diethylamide]

[Article in Polish]

Kocur J.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1119144

Mutat Res. 1974 Dec;26(6):523-8.

The mutagenic effect of lysergic acid diethylamide. III. Evaluation of the genetic risk of LSD in man.

Srám RJ, Goetz P.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4431425 empty link

actual research paper http://www.lycaeum.org/research/researchpdfs/2767....

again the dosages used where so astronomically high relative to a human dose as to render any results irrelevant.

Mutat Res. 1974 Dec;26(6):513-6.

The mutagenic effect of lysergic acid diethylamide. I. Cytogenetic analysis.

Goetz P, Srám RJ, Zudová Z

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4431423 empty NIH link

Actual paper http://www.lycaeum.org/research/?id=2949

(take note that the doses used on the mice were 10ug/kg low dose, 1000ug/kg high dose. again far exceeding doses used in humans. and even though there were some abnormalities observed, no conclusive results were arrived at.)

Why would you refer to articles that don't exist on the NIH website as you stated they did? There is just an abstract title with no text of the abstract or research available from the NIH.

But maybe if you actually did some research you would have found them, I did.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Now let's touch on some of the known dangers of LSD usage. First let's talk about "flashbacks". Flashbacks are described as a reoccurrence of the effects often brought on by an emotional stressor. Some have classified flashbacks as being a form of post traumatic stress disorder. That makes a lot of sense considering that LSD is a very emotional and profound experience. Positive for some, negative for others. It has been thus far conclusively shown that there is no physiological source for post LSD flashbacks. I quote Dr. Alexander Shulgin on this as he is probably the world's foremost expert on these type of substances.

"The myth of the “lingering molecule” of LSD was given support by the Drug Enforcement Administration at a two day meeting in San Francisco, in late 1991. The DEA invited some 200 participants from law enforcement groups (both domestic and foreign) to share information concerning LSD. The law enforcement agents were told that not only was the storage location known (the frontal lobes of the brain) but also the length of time it stayed there (up to twenty years).

“The evidence is all about us,” they were told. “The indiscriminate use of LSD in the Summer of Love (in the 1960s) has led directly, through the re-release of these hidden-away molecules and the resulting flashbacks, to the hordes of the homeless, the psychotic, and the disenfranchised here on the streets of San Francisco.”

The flashback phenomenon with LSD is rare but real. An auditory or visual clue can bring back a passing memory of an earlier experience. The residue of any tangible quantity of the chemical itself, in the brain or blood of the user after 24 hours, is, however, total nonsense.

-- Dr. Shulgin

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shulgin/adsarchive...

Flashbacks are a real occurrence, albeit a rare one. It has been likened to post traumatic stress syndrome. This is reasonable considering that the majority of people who complain of flashbacks had an unpleasant experience with LSD. Here is some concise info on the topic, but by no means all there is or definitive; http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_faq.shtml#...

The exact cause is still under investigation, therefore I will make no final determination as to their status in this debate, just that it is a real concern for those using or considering using LSD.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

The next real concern is a syndrome known as HPPD or Hallucinogenic Persistent Perception Disorder. "It is a disorder characterized by a continual presence of visual disturbances that are reminiscent of those generated by the ingestion of hallucinogenic substances. Previous use of hallucinogens by the person is needed, though not sufficient, for diagnosing someone with the disorder. For an individual to be diagnosed with HPPD, the symptoms cannot be due to another medical condition. HPPD is distinct from flashbacks by reason of its relative permanence; while flashbacks are transient, HPPD is persistent. HPPD is a DSM-IV diagnosis with diagnostic code 292.89."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisti...

Although I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia as a source of research material, this article on HPPD is rather good. HPPD is a very real syndrome and does seem to affect people who have used psychedelics, although is also affects people whom have never taken any psychedelic as well. It has been known about and linked to LSD use for decades now, but unfortunately there is still a lot of unknown variables regarding it. Here is another resource on HPPD; http://www.visualsnow.com/information/research/ind...

This is actually the only negative physiological effect linked to using LSD. I'm surprised you didn't mention it Hal, but I have a pretty good idea why you didn't.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

As far as psychological effects and possible damage LSD can cause it has been confirmed numerous times to ONLY seem to manifest in individuals who already exhibited symptoms or had a family history of mental illness which could indicate a genetic predisposition. It has also had long lasting adverse effects in individuals who were either unaware that they had ingested it or were completely unfamiliar with its effects. LSD is not for everyone and it's use should be very carefully researched and ones motives seriously considered before taking it. LSD is a very powerful psychoactive substance and as such should not be taken lightly and with disregard as to any dangers involved with its use. Personal expectations and the motivation for taking it play a very vital part in determining the experience an individual may have.

For those who are experienced with LSD and the experience it can bring, often a "bad trip" can be the most rewarding. More often than not a bad LSD experience is due to its capacity to evoke memories and emotions that an individual may not want to deal with. I have always said that LSD is the most brutally frank and honest mirror you will ever look into. Some people are not ready or able to confront themselves at the depths of honesty LSD can provide. Those are often the ones who have a "bad trip" or end up in the hospital. Not necessarily because of the LSD per se, but because of what was revealed to them about themselves.

For a person experiencing a high dose; 250-500ug, for the first time probably the most disconcerting thing is what has been termed "ego-death" or "ego-dissolution". I prefer the latter term, it is more concise as to what happens. Basically all the roles you play and terms and identifiers that you have learned and built up that define "you" are no longer relevant or hold the same importance. This can progress to a point to where you just "are", no labels, no definitions, no restrictions, you are just a being or point of pure awareness. It truly feels as though you are dying to go through this. But once on the other side of this phenomenon you realize how much more you are than all the labels and trappings you associated with your sense of worth. For some this is a blissful excursion into heaven, for others it can be a tortuous descent into the depths of their own hell.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

In the next couple of days I will post information about the positive ways in which LSD has been used. Treating alcoholism and addiction, as an adjunct to psychotherapy, and the current research into it's use to relieve cluster headaches.

Sorry for the delays, holidays and all you know.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

There are in the literature two cases of overdose from LSD, one resulting in death. In the first eight people snorted pure LSD crystal thinking it was cocaine. All survived and were released within 48 hours.

http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?ID=...

The death was believed to be the result of a man injecting approximately 320mgs, 23 times the previously calculated lethal human dose. This amount is 800-1600 times the usual "street" dose of 200 - 400ug

http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?A=S...

Curious that those are the only two incidents in the literature I could find with a direct link between LSD and toxic effects in humans. If Mr. Licino's claim that;

"LSD is extremely harmful to almost every single mammalian and human anatomical, physiological, and psychological function."

was accurate and given that millions of people have taken LSD you would think there would be a lot more cases of overdose and death if it was that harmful.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Readers I know I am providing a lot of outside links and Hubpages code I guess does not open links in a new window. Just right click on the link and open in a new tab or window so you can review without leaving this Hubpages.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Now let's touch on some of the positive ways that LSD has been used.

Alcoholism has been treated using psychedelics, namely LSD, with fairly good results, averaging a 50% success rate when done in tandem with supportive counseling and follow up care. As there is good deal of literature concerning this topic I will just provide a quick excerpt and links and I encourage the reader to investigate them on their own. As an interesting side note Bill Wilson the founder of AA was "cured" of his drinking while undergoing treatment utilizing barbiturates and belladonna, a very dangerous delerient hallucinogen. He later became involved with Humphrey Osmond and Abraham Hoffer in their work with LSD and fully supported it and Wilson himself took LSD in 1956 http://csp.org/chrestomathy/pass_it_on.html.

"Bill loved LSD. He urged everyone he knew to try it, including his wife Lois, his secretary Nell Wing, his friend Dr. Jack Norris, Reverend Sam Shoemaker, and Father Ed Dowling. He even thought his mother might benefit.

My Name Is Bill; Bill Wilson — His Life And The Creation Of Alcoholics Anonymous, Susan Cheever, page 241."


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Now onto more research;

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-10/uoa...

"For the past five years, Dr. Erika Dyck has been unearthing some intriguing facts related to a group of pioneering psychiatrists who worked in Saskatchewan, Canada in the '50s and '60s."

"The LSD somehow gave these people experiences that psychologically took them outside of themselves and allowed them to see their own unhealthy behavior more objectively, and then determine to change it," said Dyck, who read the researchers' published and private papers and recently interviewed some of the patients involved in the original studies--many of whom had not had a sip of alcohol since their single LSD experience 40 years earlier."

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/hoffer.htm

"Within a few years after our first patients were treated, we became aware that a large proportion of our alcoholics did not have psychotomimetic reactions. Their experiences were exciting and pleasant, and yielded insight into their drinking problems. It became evident that a new phenomenon had been recognized in psychiatry. Osmond created the word psychedelic to define these experiences, and announced this at a meeting of the New York Academy of Sciences in 1957."

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/savage.htm

"Case History of Excessive Drinking with Improvement Following LSD

This was a 30-year-old radiologist who consulted the writer in 1959. He complained that for the past year he had nightly drunk himself to sleep, and then awoke with nightmares in the middle of the night. His wife would become enraged at being awakened and he would spend the rest of the night crying. He was depressed, unable to work. However, his chief complaint, of years duration, was an inability to feel or experience.

"It was as if I was inside a glass shell. I mean I could see out and people could see in, but I couldn't talk or feel."..........." It was the patient's suggestion that LSD be tried, which was done after fourteen preliminary psychotherapeutic interviews."................. "

At that moment he reported a mystic enlightenment, a kind of satori. He experienced feeling, closeness with the therapist, with himself and the universe (and, after the session, with his wife). In the evening he telephoned to tell me how grateful he was. He had experienced completely successful sexual relations for the first time. He began to pour his energy into his work, and nightly drinking sessions were no longer required."

Dr. Humphrey Osmond was one of the main pioneers into this field of treatment, so here are a few links about him and his work.

http://www.maps.org/people/osmond/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC381240...

http://www.maps.org/media/nyt022204.html


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Cluster Headaches;

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cluster-headache/...

"A cluster headache is one of the most painful types of headache. A striking feature of cluster headache is that the attacks occur in cyclical patterns, or clusters — which gives the condition its name.

Bouts of frequent attacks — known as cluster periods — may last from weeks to months, usually followed by remission periods when the headache attacks stop completely. The pattern varies from one person to another, but most people have one or two cluster periods a year. During remission, no headaches occur for months, and sometimes even years"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_headache

There is a lot of promising research going on using LSD and Psilocybin (magic mushrooms) to treat cluster headaches and break the cycle of recurrence.

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/1...

"The authors interviewed 53 cluster headache patients who had used psilocybin or lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to treat their condition. Twenty-two of 26 psilocybin users reported that psilocybin aborted attacks; 25 of 48 psilocybin users and 7 of 8 LSD users reported cluster period termination; 18 of 19 psilocybin users and 4 of 5 LSD users reported remission period extension. Research on the effects of psilocybin and LSD on cluster headache may be warranted."

This is the flagship study and it has garnered a tremendous amount of support. There is a lot of references online to this study of which I offer a couple of links;

http://www.helpforheadaches.com/articles/psilocybi...

http://headaches.about.com/od/clusterheadaches/a/m...

Another man's experience;

http://www.naturalnews.com/026015.html

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/102400/lsd_cu...

Here is a risk report about the aforementioned research in case anyone was concerned about the "The Extensive Damage LSD Does To The Body & Mind"

Risk Report

National Geographic Explorer aired this episode. Inside LSD, which touched on some of the very promising research with LSD into cluster headaches as well as other possible positive effects.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explo...

LSD and Psilocybin are also being studied as agents to help relieve anxiety in terminal cancer patients and others suffering from severe anxiety.

http://www.maps.org/research/cluster/psilo-lsd/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/23/lsd-...

http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=979

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/dying.htm

http://www.psychointegrator.com/?p=408

http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v16n3/cancer_psyc...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200504/psy...

http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/2005...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_therapy


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Ok readers I know I have inundated you with links to other sites in this debate. My reasoning is that unlike Mr. Licino I am not afraid to cite my sources for the information. I really encourage you to investigate the links rather than just accept what Mr. Licino or myself claim. I also do so in response to Mr. Licino's response to my comments in the hub that got this all started;

http://hubpages.com/health/How-To-Spot--Prevent-Dr...

in which he said, "PB Smith: I'm placing this on both the Hubs where you have spewed your perilously erroneous trash. This much is clear: You are completely insane and are pulling facts out of your rectum. Your opinions on the safety and actual therapeutic characteristics of both smoking cannabis on cancer and LSD in general have absolutely no basis in clinical research, (which I can quote by the hundreds of peer reviewed papers) and you are one dangerous SOB. Smoking cannabis can double the likelihood of a significant number of cancers. You are obviously confusing in vitro research with smokin' a spliff, bozo. As for the effects of LSD, they are all 100% negative, especially on pregnancies where they are directly linked to a plethora of birth defects and miscarriage. Do us all a favor and go away, take your stupid junkie druggie lies with you, and don't come back."

So readers am I spewing erroneous trash? Am I pulling facts out of my rectum? Am I confusing in-vitro research with in-vivo? Are all the effects of LSD 100% negative? Are they directly linked to a plethora of birth defects?

You see readers I unlike Mr. Licino believe that you are intelligent enough to read the information for yourselves and come to your own conclusions regarding LSD. Don't ever let someone like Mr. Licino or myself "tell" you what something is or isn't, investigate it for yourself and get the facts.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Seeing how all this started with Mr. Licino's hub about birth defects I thought it might be interesting to see what the facts are regarding substance abuse and birth defects.

From the March of Dimes site;

http://www.marchofdimes.com/14332_1206.asp

"What causes birth defects?

Both genetic and environmental factors, or a combination of these factors, can cause birth defects. However, the causes of about 70 percent of birth defects are unknown.

Environmental factors: Environmental substances that can cause birth defects are called teratogens. These include alcohol, certain drugs/medications, infections, and certain chemicals."

Notice alcohol is listed first

"Each year between 1,000 and 6,000 babies are born with fetal alcohol syndrome"

Illicit drugs

http://www.marchofdimes.com/14332_1169.asp

"Illicit drugs may pose risks for pregnant women and babies. A baby may be born too small or too soon, or have withdrawal symptoms, birth defects, or learning and behavioral problems."

"Because many pregnant women who use illicit drugs also use alcohol and tobacco, which also pose risks to unborn babies, it often is difficult to determine which health problems are caused by a specific illicit drug. Additionally, illicit drugs may be prepared with impurities that may be harmful to a pregnancy.

Finally, pregnant women who use illicit drugs may engage in other unhealthy behaviors that place their pregnancy at risk, such as having extremely poor nutrition. All of these factors make it difficult to know exactly what the effects of illicit drugs are on pregnancy."

What I would like readers to notice is the use of the word "may" and the uncertainty inherent in determining the actual cause of birth defects in the population of drug using mothers.

and this;

"There have been occasional reports of birth defects in babies of women who used LSD during pregnancy, but it is not known whether or not the drug contributed to the defects"

I am in no way advocating drug usage in a woman who is pregnant or trying to conceive, just pointing out that Mr. Licinos interpretation of the facts is a bit skewed.

Alcohol

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/19695_11...

"Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can cause a wide range of physical and mental birth defects. The term “fetal alcohol spectrum disorders” (FASDs) is used to describe the many problems associated with exposure to alcohol before birth. Each year in the United States, up to 40,000 babies are born with FASDs"

What is really disturbing is that recent research quoted on the site says that as little as ONE DRINK A WEEK can have effects on the child.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Why am I bringing this up you ask?

Well it is very interesting that Mr. Licinos hubs about birth defects say nothing whatsoever about alcohol use. It is a drug, you do realize that don't you Hal? The legality of a substance does not determine if it is a drug or not. Why didn't you mention alcohol Hal? It is the most widely available and abused drug in the world and is confirmed beyond any doubt whatsoever to cause horrific birth defects. Actually all the defects you mentioned as being caused by illicit drugs occur with far greater frequency from alcohol abuse. Why didn't you mention that?

Maybe this is why;

Number of Hal's hubs devoted to alcohol,26..The majority of which are about how to brew your own beer. That doesn't include all the hubs about wine glasses which as far as I'm concerned are the same as hubs about bongs and rolling papers.

Just a little hypocritical coming from a man who is so concerned about the health and well being of pregnant mothers and their children. But the hypocrisy doesn't end there, I came across these gems of wisdom while perusing some of Mr. Licino's other hubs;

A couple of Hal's comments regarding alcohol;

"Joe, banning alcohol and returning to Prohibition would save countless thousands of lives not every year, but every month, as well as eliminating the major source of social and relationship problems. However, the genie is too far out of the whisky bottle to put it back in. (Although it would be wonderful if it could happen)."

"I have a couple of beers a year only on the hottest days as they go down good, and a glass of Asti Spumante on New Year's Eve. That's the extent of my drinking, and if all individuals were to drink in the same way I do, there would be no need to impose an Alcohol Prohibition again. I've seen far too many lives destroyed by alcohol abuse... but then again, we're getting way off topic."

So a man who is apparently opposed to alcohol and favors the return of prohibition publishes 26 hubs about it, the majority of which are about how to brew your own beer?

So you figured you would help destroy some more lives by teaching how to make your own booze?

And I'm the dangerous SOB?


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Now I know one of Hal's comments will be that some of the sites I quote from have names like The Psychedelic Library or The Drug Library or are drug oriented sites. There is a reason for that, and I feel confident that if you readers browse those sites you will find this to be true,

THEY ARE HONEST ABOUT DRUGS.

They present the cons as well as the pros regarding drug usage. Remember legal status does not dictate if something is a drug or if it is harmful. Heck refined white sugar is probably one of the worst things you can put into your body. I have no problem using those sites as references, for one thing you often find the actual study literature rather than just some vague abstract. They also are realistic concerning drug usage, people are going to use drugs no matter what. As long as that is the reality, then offering honest truthful facts and guidance about them leads to wiser decisions by the users and less deaths and problems.

Telling lies and myths actually leads to a greater drug problem than telling the truth about them, the good, bad and the ugly. How many people died of cancer because tobacco companies said smoking was harmless and suppressed research to the contrary? I know my mother-in-law did.

As a father of six I am thankful that so far none of my kids have gotten involved with drugs or alcohol. One of the main reasons is because I have always been honest with them about my own past usage and about what different drugs do. If I lie to them and say smoking pot will make you stupid and cause you to freak out and be insane, when they do try it, and I'm honest with myself, some most likely will, and find out I lied then the natural leap for a kid is "well I was lied to about all drugs" and before you know it they are trying heroin or coke.

That is why the DARE program as well as others are miserable failures, kids aren't stupid.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Well let me bring my part in this to an end, I trust you will post ALL of my comments Mr.Licino.

Mr. Licino as far as I'm concerned by your blatant act of altering the context and heavily editing the research articles you quote you have lost all credibility in this debate. You then end each section with an emotionally charged interpretive comment designed to alarm the reader.

Did you just assume that I wouldn't check your references or actually read them. Seems as though I read them considerably more than you did Hal, What's more it would appear that I also understand them more than you do.

For example you carefully edited the first research you quoted to make it appear as though it supported your position, which is difficult considering that research states SIX times that LSD does NOT cause genetic damage.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4994465

"This damage, with one exception, was the result of concentrations of drug and durations of exposure which could not be achieved in humans with reasonable dosages. There did not appear to be a dose-response relation. The magnitude of damage, when found, was in the range encompassing the effects of many commonly used substances. The absence in vitro of excretory and detoxifying systems present in vivo, as well as several negative reports, cast doubt on the relevance of in vitro results"

"We believe that pure LSD ingested in moderate dosages does not produce chromosome damage detectable by available methods"

"We believe that LSD is, in fact, a weak mutagen, effective only in extremely high doses; it is unlikely to be mutagenic in any concentration used by human subjects."

"First reports of a teratogenic effect in hamsters and rats have not been confirmed. ............ The applicability of such investigations to man is doubtful"

"There is no reported instance of a malformed child born to a woman who ingested pure LSD; there are six cases of malformation associated with exposure to illicit LSD, four of which have similar limb defects. Given, however, the high frequency of unexplained "spontaneous" birth defects, the rare occurrence of malformed infants born to women who used illicit LSD may be coincidental"

"While there is no evidence that pure LSD is teratogenic in man"

"From our own work and from a review of the literature, we believe that pure LSD ingested in moderate doses does not damage chromosomes in vivo, does not cause detectable genetic damage, and is not a teratogen or a carcinogen in man"

Then you go on to tell your readers to essentially ignore it because;

"This early study gets a little bit wound up in the differences between ingesting pure LSD and illicit LSD and thus obfuscates its own conclusions. So let's go onto some more interesting later studies..."

When in actuality making the distinction between test subjects who were multi drug abusers as opposed to those who only used pharmaceutical pure LSD just further confirms that LSD itself is not a teratogenic or carcinogenic substance in the dosages used by humans.

My thought is that when you started to discover that the evidence DOES NOT support your position, rather than actually doing some research you just grabbed the abstracts that you felt had very ominous and scary titles and copied and pasted the info to create your hub page. Did you even read any of it at all?

You seem to assume your readers are ignorant and lazy and hope they will just gasp at your charged comments and not bother to investigate further.

You also underestimated me and thought you could scare me with this remark;

"Do us all a favor and go away, take your stupid junkie druggie lies with you, and don't come back."

I find that amusing considering that you, Mr. Licino, are the one who has lied and altered facts to try to support your position. I understand now why you were reluctant to include links to the research. You know if people read it for themselves that you would be shown to have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Well that about sums up my argument. I look forward to your response to what I have provided, as do others.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

I believe I have posted all your comments, and it was rather difficult as I had to pull them out of the automatic HubPages spam filter. I am on deadline thus have not been able to be around here for the past couple of days, but I wanted to drop in and approve everything. I trust I didn't miss any.

I do want to thank you for what has to be by far the most comprehensive commenting marathon I've seen on this site. I will go through every single one of your statements (that I have to admit I have not read through yet) and totally debunk your claims that LSD is safe. It's gonna take me a while as I have to pay the rent first. When I get past this killer project I'm working on, these replies will get my complete attention.

And yes, I do want to thank you, PB, as you are definitely committed to your cause. I don't agree with it and I will never agree with it but it is clear that your evangelism in itself is commendable.

More in a few days! C ya!


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

"and it was rather difficult as I had to pull them out of the automatic HubPages spam filter. I am on deadline thus have not been able to be around here for the past couple of days, but I wanted to drop in and approve everything. I trust I didn't miss any"

I have no problem posting or contacting other hubs, just you it seems. Haven't been around for the past couple of days? You've published 30 new hubs since Nov.30, and I have seen your comments on other hubs posted even just last night?


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

I've just posted a screenshot of what I see from my end. I get notified of all comments on all 1500+ as they are posted by email, whether the Hub is moderated or not. However, any that are marked as Spam do not generate an email. So unless I go to look at that Hub, I don't know that a comment has been made. With 1563 Hubs, I don't exactly go check each one individually every day. If you are being posted on other Hubs it's because the Hubber is clicking NOT SPAM on EACH of your comments. Also, the Canon Hub was the last one I posted and that was over 3 days ago. Last night I decided to drop in to reply to nicomp about something, and checked this Hub just to see if you'd replied. I have known for a while that this huge project was coming in, so I knew this week was going to be largely a writeoff when it came to Hubs. So... again... I'm off. Likely won't be back on until Monday at the earliest! Have a fun weekend! :)


jake 7 years ago

So hal why didn't you post the complete articles. If you want to have a real discussion i think you shouldn't be leaving out key parts


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

Which complete articles? From the medical literature? They're all available on the NIH sites, and including them here would make the Hub 100,000 words! Longer than a novel! What the heck would be the point in that?

Anyway...

PB, I'm back, and I'm gonna start going through your replies. Watch for a loooooooong post (maybe not as long as yours) in the next few days! :)


appledipper 7 years ago

oh this is certainly bookmarked

cannot WAIT to see what you have to say to this XD


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

The wait will be worth it! :)


north 7 years ago

Oh yes, this page was bookmarked some time ago.

PB_Smith you're the man :)


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

Hmm... if he's the man, how come I'm going to have my way with him? OK OK... just kidding... I promised I was going to keep personalities out of this and just deal with FACTS. The looooooooong reply is gonna be a few more days in coming but when it does, it should put this issue to rest... again only with facts, no personal comments! :)


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 7 years ago from Southern California

Hal, I certainly hope you provide links to all the research or studies that you feel will put this issue to rest, otherwise it is pointless.

Honestly I have gone through all the research you cited as well as lots more and none, not one thing was I able to find suggested that LSD was physiologically harmful in the amounts typically used in humans, with the exception of HPPD, which I have already noted.

If you wish to concede to save yourself from further embarrassment, I gladly refuse.

I am very curious to see what you come up with, but please no more heavily edited, ludicrous animal studies using astronomical doses please. Let's keep this in the realm of reason.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

Embarrassment, hardly. I will cite studies that will make you... er... I agreed to no personal attacks. :) heheheh


kymani 7 years ago

Wow this pb dude, took it seriously, anyways hal as i been reading your hubs i noticed you really know what your talking about and you wouldn't lie to as about anything, why would someone do so? I'll be waiting for your response to PB, i really hope you prove this drug adict wrong, you better answear fast as who knows how much time he gots left as he is taking one of the worst drugs ever, lsd. A friend of mine, told me a friend of him, told him he knew a guy who used to inject himself lsd every night and he ended thinking he was an orange juice glass for the rest of his life. I think there is a documented thing about this, i think i found it somewhere near your hubs.


Stephen 7 years ago

Hal, whatever you have to say better be good because you've already uttered one statement that discredits you in my mind: "And yes, I do want to thank you, PB, as you are definitely committed to your cause. I don't agree with it and I will never agree with it but it is clear that your evangelism in itself is commendable."

I don't agree and never will? Even if the evidence says otherwise? This is not a scientist's attitude, and this is clearly a debate that should be based on science. You may not like drugs, and you don't have to, but you can't deny scientific evidence about their effects.

Also, PB is committed to his cause, and his cause is rooted in facts and reason. That's not evangelism, unless you can be an evangelist for science.

I'm eager to see what you post, but I'm extremely skeptical as to its validity. But seriously, if you have nothing, then don't waste our time.


7thDirection 7 years ago

Good luck Hal - you'll need it.

The fact that you are going out of your way to specifically "debunk" (your words) everything he said shows you are operating from the very scientific standpoint that assumes your hypothesis is true from the get go. If only we all had such reasoned rigor.

Good luck finding that research!


strange_attractor 7 years ago

"I don't agree with it and I will never agree with it but it is clear that your evangelism in itself is commendable."

-Hal Licino

I'm terribly sorry to interject (and will state no position on the matter), but do you realize that by saying you will "never agree with it" you are being evangelical about the matter? This is not a matter of opinion. You are simply not allowed to say "I will never agree/disagree" to anything in science. Those are the rules. When you are presented with overwhelming evidence you cannot simply chose to disagree. There is no choice- there is only empirical data!


Bill 7 years ago

Hal, you'd have more credibility if you didn't have a history of histrionic summaries with no basis in the literature.

I'd ask you one question - please find a case study outlining (one or many) of the multitude of effects you fabricated.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

kymani: Thank you for your support. If the person was administering LSD intravenously I'm not surprised at all that the psychological effects were devastating.

To the rest of the mob: I've promised to keep this comments section free of personal attacks, so I won't rip you guys the new rectums you so sorely require. However, how STUPID do you have to be to think that I don't ALREADY have all the info, and thus have MORE than ample data to prove my hypothesis... indeed I did before I wrote this Hub? Of course I will never agree that this poison is not anything but poison... because I already have the data to back me up! FYI I'm waiting on a set date where I will be conversing with one of the world's foremost researchers into the psychological and physiological effects of this drug, as he has told me that he has some extremely interesting studies and data to contribute. So stay tuned pathetic druggie freaks... er... interested individuals! :)


Andrew 7 years ago

First, people don't inject LSD. Clearly that is an urban legend and if I'm wrong, I ask the commenter to please provide proof to the contrary.

___

"And yes, I do want to thank you, PB, as you are definitely committed to your cause. I don't agree with it and I will never agree with it but it is clear that your evangelism in itself is commendable."

You can't use "science" to try and bolster your viewpoint and then refuse to accept science when it proves you wrong. You have no place discussing science if you admit that you will never change your mind, regardless of how much science supports it. You have no place discussing your viewpoint using science if you are not willing to change your claims, given adequate scientific evidence. This is the whole point of the scientific method! Also, the word "evangelism" has no place in science. He is not evangelizing, he is disproving your "scientific proof" using science (and doing it well, I might add).

"However, how STUPID do you have to be to think that I don't ALREADY have all the info, and thus have MORE than ample data to prove my hypothesis..."

Nobody has "all the info" on ANY subject related to science. Once again, the whole idea of the scientific method (and consequently, science), is the constant evolution of knowledge through a never-ending cycle of hypothesis and experimentation. For example, gravity is only a theory. But because our understanding of it has evolved over hundreds of years, we know enough about it to construct aircraft, spacecraft, satellites and many other devices where the safety of human beings relies on our understanding of subject. The simple fact that you claim to already know all the information on this subject tells me (and any other true scientific thinkers) that your opinion has nothing to do with science. You may claim that it does, and cite scientific studies that you believe support your claim, but if you are unwilling to accept ALL scientific evidence as truth, you are simply manipulating studies in order to reinforce what you already believe. Anyone with a true understanding of the scientific method is always prepared to be proven wrong. You must always be willing to accept ALL scientific data, whether it reinforces your opinion or not.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

There is NO data to support anything but my hypothesis, just like there is no data to state that drinking a jug of bleach a day is good for you. As soon as I speak to the researcher, I will be more than happy to share it with all you deluded... er... nice people. Thanks for wasting keystrokes. Have a nice day! :)


SirDent 7 years ago

Maybe you should write a new hub Hal. Title it, "LSD is good for you, Give it to your children."


Andrew 7 years ago

Are you going to even address anything I said, or just continue with the red herrings?

Here's the difference between someone like you and a real scientist. People like you will decide first what they want to prove, and then only look for data that backs that up. A real scientist will methodically collect data, form a hypothesis and then attempt to prove that hypothesis WRONG. They will then create a NEW hypothesis, this time incorporating any new data they obtained in disproving their last hypothesis. They will set up and perform experiments with this new hypothesis. This process is repeated indefinitely, each time refining their hypothesis using any new data collected. This is called the scientific method, and is the basis for just about everything we understand about the universe.

Once again, you cannot do scientific research on a subject unless you are prepared to admit you are wrong. The fact that you explicitly state that you will never change your mind, shows that your viewpoint is based on anything but scientific evidence. So please don't act like it is.


Andrew 7 years ago

I can see you fitting in well in the early 1600's:

"The earth is the center of the universe! This is the truth and I will never admit I am wrong, regardless of any scientific data proving otherwise. How STUPID do you have to be to think that I don't ALREADY have all the info, and thus have more than AMPLE data to prove my hypothesis?"


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

Sir Dent: Yeah, it's especially good for preschooler breakfasts with a chaser of heroin and an 8ball of meth. :)

Andrew: Do you have a comprehension problem? (Note I'm not making a comment about what the acid you've dropped has done to your brain cells.) Read my lips if you can see them and don't think they're psychodelic dancing dragons. I HAVE THE DATA. I AM WAITING TO TALK TO THE DOC TO GET EVEN MORE. Goodnight. Go dream of John Lennon and the vial he used to dip his finger in. :)


Andrew 7 years ago

"Maybe you should write a new hub Hal. Title it, 'LSD is good for you, Give it to your children.' "

Here we go with another logical fallacy, false dichotomy. Obviously, because LSD doesn't cause extensive damage to the body & mind, that means its good for you and should be given to children. Because clearly those are the only two possible options.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

Andrew... way too many drugs... your condition is proving the point way better than any data ever could.


Andrew 7 years ago

That's funny, before I can even finish my comment pointing out a logical fallacy, there's another one: Ad hominem. For your information, I've never even done LSD. you have yet to respond to anything I said regarding science and the scientific method. You are using "science" as a guise to further your agenda, and as a scientist, this makes me sick. You cannot say that you will never change your mind about something, and at the same time claim to use science to prove your point. SCIENCE DOES NOT HAVE AN AGENDA. SCIENCE IS UNBIASED.

I do not have a comprehension problem. Though it seems as though you may, as you have yet to address anything our friend PB_Smith has said regarding your arguments. He basically renders any "data" you have useless. Oh yeah, and if you don't already have "all the info" and "more than AMPLE data to prove your hypothesis," why are we waiting for you to speak with some "doctor"?

Also, I don't think it strengthens your argument to cite one of the greatest musicians and songwriters of the 20th century to make a point against LSD.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

Andrew, I have the data. More than enough to squash PB and any proponents of this insanity. But since I want to make my squashing a complete annihilation, I will wait to talk to the doc. Why? Because I said so. And your baiting is only making me comprehend how pathetic you and the moronic druggies who try to justify their despicable habits really are. Have a good day! :)


Andrew 7 years ago

"Andrew... way too many drugs... your condition is proving the point way better than any data ever could."

Care to elaborate?

Interesting how one will resort to ad hominem attacks and character assassination when they have nothing else. Stay classy.


SirDent 7 years ago

Actually, what I wrote was sarcasm.

Of course drugs cause no long term damage. Cancer cannot be caused by a drug, heart attacks cannot happen because of drugs. Then you have the fact that the CIA used these drugs that Hal wrote about in experiments. They banned them after a few years. Bad trips mean nothing either. Go figure.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

Sir Dent, of course, I was replying in sarcasm as well. It is completely understood by any sane individual that the body of evidence against the proponents of the "drugs are better than apple pie" crowd is overwhelming. I've had to whittle my collection of studies which provide clear clinical evidence way down or it would take many pages just to list them. I really do feel sorry for people who have to cling to some ethereal illusion that the filth they are pouring into their bodies is somehow beneficial. It stems from their complete lack of self esteem which is the primary cause of falling into drug use. They desperately need effective rehab.

Andrew: Wait and read the data. Afterwards, you can state how you have changed your mind. Otherwise, you can just state that you don't have a clue. Trying to bait me to tipping my hand before I have all the ts crossed and the is dotted is a pathetic attempt that I'm laughing at. Like I said, have a nice day... and I'll even add a classy day! :)


SirDent 7 years ago

LOL, I forgot to say good hub., Way to stir the pot. OOPS!!!!!!


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

Thanks! Yeah, this is my very special recipe! Take a bunch of nuts, throw them into a HubPot to stew, wait until they bubble and squeak, and then spread them into a paste! :)


Andrew 7 years ago

If you read my comments, you will see that they have nothing to do with whether LSD, or any other drug for that matter, is good or bad. I certainly haven't implied that, "drugs are better than apple pie." My arguments are pertaining to the inherent flaws in your reasoning. Clearly LSD isn't GOOD for anyone. But that it does extensive damage to the body and mind is a hefty claim, and your sources and reasoning fail to prove this claim. Also, as a scientist, your attempt to use science to further your agenda is offensive, and I felt the need to point out the error of your methodology.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

You've got me in stitches. You keep stating "as a scientist..." Dude, on the internet nobody knows what kind of dog you are. If you can claim you're a scientist I can claim I'm Cleopatra... oh but no... that would have to be you as you simply must have the title of "Queen of Denial." :)


normal human being 7 years ago

Hal: you continually say that you won't personally attack people who make comments, and then you proceed to make assumptions about their drug use and refer to them as "pathetic druggie freaks", "nuts", "moronic druggies", etc. How is that constructive? It only makes you seem less reliable (saying one thing, doing another) and incredibly biased (anyone who makes a solid point that goes against your beliefs is "pathetic"), and therefore, in my opinion, debases anything you argue.


Lucy D. 7 years ago

I can definitely say that lsd is BAD!! My neighbor told me a story one time about a friend of his who had an aunt whos son's frind tried some lsd.

He too had delusions of becoming a glass of orange juice..So sad.


normal human being 7 years ago

Could we also get the name of the researcher you will be talking to?


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

nhb: HA! If you want to see me really let loose on people, just go check out some of my other Hubs. Even Sir Dent and I had a knock down drag out about a year ago where I called him so many nasty names, HubPages asked me to CENSOR them. And, as you can see, Sir Dent and I now have developed a measure of mutual respect for each other. This is my Hub: it is not the weekly meeting of the Royal Society. This is my style, it has been my style since I first started working as a professional editor and writer over three decades ago, and you can accept it or you can go watch Family Guy (another one of my pet peeves). Andrew is trying to bait me to tipping my hand until I speak to the preeminent researcher I have an appointment with. That makes me laugh uproariously and shows how PATHETIC the attempt is as he is grasping at straws in trying to justify the unjustifiable. People who take psychedelic drugs are profoundly sick individuals, they need immediate and intensive treatment/rehab, and there are as many scientific, clinical, peer reviewed justifications for their belief in the salubrious effect of their drug of choice as there are in the benefits of enjoying cyanide cocktails. Druggies are nuts, freaks, and morons that need to be pitied and treated, forcibly if necessary in order to keep them and society safe. That's my statement. I'm sticking with it, and have a great DRUGFREE day! BTW, do you have some sort of ADHD problem too? Do you understand the meaning of the four letter word: WAIT? I will report in full EXACTLY WHEN I'M GOOD AND READY AND I SAY SO. Sheesh!

Lucy D. The medical literarure is filled with accounts of the incredibly devastating psychological effects of LSD, and that is what makes the PATHETIC attempt to defend the "value" of this drug even more profoundly sick and sickening.


normal human being 7 years ago

Do you consider alcohol a drug? Why or why not? Have you ever consumed alcohol?

What about caffeine (i.e. coffee, tea, etc.)? Do you consider it a drug? Please explain why or why not.

Does legality have anything to do with how you classify drugs?

These questions should not not require a meeting with a researcher to answer. I think that they also will be useful in clarifying how you define "drugs".


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto Author

nhb: Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason. There is an overwhelming body of clinical evidence that they have deleterious effects on society. I don't drink alcohol and haven't been drunk since I was a teenager, but that's not the point. NOW ARE YOU TRYING TO BAIT ME TOO? GEEZ WHAT IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE?

To all my new friends who have posted more than two dozen comments so far that are filled with expletives and kindergarten taunts. Keep on posting, I'll keep on deleting! Let's see who gets tired first! WHAT A BUNCH OF LOSERS! Sheesh! Get a job! And a girlfriend. And a life. (Like you can... heheheh)

Nitey nite! Have a nice nite of NATURAL and not drug-induced dreams! See you all on the other side!


Lucy D. 7 years ago

I know Hal. At least WE know what's going on....These people can talk about 'facts' all day...It don't mean nuthin' to me.


normal human being 7 years ago

Please answer all of my questions thoroughly if you want me to continue to do the same for you. What are your thoughts about caffeine?

I'm not trying to bait you. I simply prefer to have all of the facts before I form an opinion. And even after I've formed my opinion, I try to remember to remain open to other opinions, whether I agree with them or not.


Andrew 7 years ago

Are we supposed to be impressed by your ability to call people names instead of actually addressing their comments? Because I am very impressed.

Here's some classic circular logic:

Why are drugs bad? Because they are illegal.

Why are drugs illegal? Because they are bad.

Rinse, lather and repeat.

Lets not forget about some drugs that are legal, alcohol, tobacco, etc. I suppose these drugs aren't bad? I don't think I need to go into any statistics regarding these two and how many people die every single day from consuming them. How about prescription drugs such as oxycontin and morphine? How many people die from these drugs? How many overdoses of LSD are there?

BTW, I'm not trying to bait you into anything, I'm just confused. You claim to already have all the information, and more than enough data to 'annihilate' PB's arguments, yet you are waiting to hear from a 'doctor' (who's credentials you refuse to disclose).

Anyway, have a goodnight. Make sure when you wake up tomorrow, you consume your caffeine(drug).


Andrew 7 years ago

Anyway, I feel like I'm arguing with a child. Instead of addressing the actual content of my comments, you resort to ad hominem attacks and red herrings.

Once again, stay classy.


Witness 7 years ago

Still waiting, Hal...

Enough with the smarmy and "pat-yourself-on-the-back" attempts to be droll. Get to it. Time to put up or shut up.


Spanky'squestguy64 7 years ago

Is this an online social expirement? Because it's pretty effective...


Witness 7 years ago

@Lucy D.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to go and let facts get in the way of anything.

Pure genius.


Witness 7 years ago

@Hal

"Druggies are nuts, freaks, and morons that need to be pitied and treated, forcibly if necessary in order to keep them and society safe."

Enjoy that beer, Hal. Then remember how you defined yourself right there.

I'll take bets right now that Mr. Licino is utterly unable to refute PB's research. Vegas currently has the odds at 35-1.


Andrew 7 years ago

Hey Lucy, does your middle name happen to be Sara? Or maybe Samantha? Or Sally? I'm guessing it starts with an 'S', doesn't it?


Shapperty 7 years ago

Hal - You're gonna lose. Save yourself the embarrassment.


Dutch_Cap 7 years ago

So when is your supposed appointment with this researcher? Because I can't wait to see you wea... present your findings. ;-)


Raymond 7 years ago

Arggghhh. Hal, I'm with you. Druggies like these have no place in our society. Let them have their "facts" and "common sense" and "scientific method". Deep down they know we have the answers. They are jealous, thus they feel the need to dig down deep in order to find as much of a "well rounded" opinion as possible. PATHETIC. Don't you know that when you have the facts, you just know it and there's no need to even search for any thing else? Heck, I knew illegal drugs were illegal as soon as I thought about it. I mean, why else would they be illegal? It just doesn't make any SENSE otherwise. freakin' PATHETIC if you ask me. Sorry, what were we talking about? Something PATHETIC


Peter 7 years ago

I don't know why you guys are spending so much time arguing, Hal Licino is clearly biased and absolutely incorrect. There are a plethora of individuals who have greatly benefited from the consumption of psychedelic substances, including myself. I must admit there will always be evidence on both the negative and positive sides, it's a goddamn powerful drug. If you don't want to take it, don't... if you do, know the consequences.


engie 7 years ago

Hal and Pb meet on opposite sides of a bridge expanding over a canyon.

Hal: This bridge isn't safe

Pb: Really? Looks safe to me

Hal: Trust me it'll collapse as soon as you step on it

Pb: Well I am test out its structural integrity. I'll get back to you

Pb: According to my calculations the bridge is safe afterall

Hal: No effin way. You are wrong

Pb: Watch I am going to walk to the middle of the bridge meet me when I get there. (Walks to center of bridge)

Pb: See it is safe

Hal: Screw you. If god intended man to cross large expanses he would've given him wings

Pb: ...


Lucy D. 7 years ago

After reading through everything, I think that PB guy might have a point.


blinddeafdumbhappy 7 years ago

hal.

i ignore scientific evidence i don't agree with all the time, too! to be honest with you i didn't even read that other guys posts (they were sooo long!). i didn't really read yours either tho. just saw that you posted a bunch of links to scientific stuff that said drugz r bad.

despite what all these "scientists" say... it's just way easier to believe that our government has our best interests in mind and not do a bunch of reading. they wouldn't make anything that was not harmful to us illegal, right?

please post my comment. i'm one of your biggest fans. these "facts" don't mean nuthin to me neitha.


nemesis 7 years ago

hal.

i do not anticipate that you will publish my comment, because i am here to confront you about the harm you are causing to the scientific community and the world; you do not seem to be the kind of guy who jives well with people disagreeing with you. however, if you are (even somewhat) objective, as you claim to be, and are ok with other people with differing viewpoints, it would be much appreciated if you shared this comment with the other people here who genuinely care about the subject matter of this hub.

i have spent the last few days reading your post and pb's responses in their entirety. your inability to recognize valid research and admit being in err is completely inconsistent with the scientific community which you claim to be affiliated with.

scientists do not formulate conclusions then pick and choose bits and pieces of scattered statements to support their argument (with inaccurate citation, to boot) - taking things out of context and spinning them to suit their pre-established goal. you do this on a level compatible with rush limbaugh and fox news. scientists conduct OBJECTIVE research and find solid footing before establishing any conclusions.

as a chemist, i am disappointed with individuals in the community who behave in a manner consistent with yours when conducting "research." however, i am not angry with you. you are clearly another opinionated and misinformed blogger/columnist on the internet who tries to step out of his jurisdiction into the scientific realm. and while you may convince others who are less informed to believe you, you will not fool me or any other legitimate scientists into believing anything you have to say if this is the kind of rubbish research you are going to post.

being wrong is part of the game, hal. no one is infallible. the achilles heel of the scientific community is individuals who fail to understand that being incorrect and observing, learning, understanding, accepting, and moving on with life is healthy, scientific protocol. it keeps us humble. any scientist who claims to have never been incorrect cannot and will not be accepted or respected in academia.

go ahead and finish up your "research" and rebuttal for this debate, but if/when you find that you can't actually, legitimately disprove anything pb has said... admit being in err. it truly is the only honorable option at that point. it's not like confessing that pb has done some very extensive and objective research to find a stance in opposition to yours will really affect your life. it should make you happy that a thorough investigation on the topic was conducted and a well thought-out conclusion evidenced. after-all, is that not the main goal of all scientific disciplines? worship science and its ability to not care who says what. it only seeks truth in what evidence provides.

no one is asking you to change your opinion on whether or not taking LSD is a good idea. you clearly ruled out experimentation a long time ago. it is just fine that you hold that opinion and it is even ok for you to encourage others to do the same. LSD is not for everyone. pb mentions this as well. we are not encouraging blind, misinformed usage of extremely powerful substances... rather we are encouraging quite the opposite - that people should be able to learn the unbiased truth and judge for themselves what the appropriate course of action is. what is not ok with me or so many others in this thread is the spreading misinformation on a large scale to get other people to agree with you. this type of behavior is comparable to spreading high-school gossip, but it carries significantly more dangerous repercussions.

"an expert is someone who has made all of the mistakes which can be made within a very narrow field of study."

-niels bohr


Intelligence 7 years ago

Hal has already made it known that his argument is worthless. He doesn't have any unbiased facts to share. And Lucy D, your ironic commentary pleases me.


Curious Kevin 6 years ago

"There is an overwhelming body of clinical evidence that they have deleterious effects on society."

Care to share some of this overwhelming evidence?


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 6 years ago from Southern California

Hal, Where do I begin?

First I am very disappointed that you have devolved this "debate" into yet another name calling fest with your responses to those who don't agree with your position or methodology. I assumed that the ban on such activity would apply to EVERYONE in this exchange. I guess I should have known better. It really goes a long way towards discrediting you in this supposed adult debate based on factual evidence as reported in the scientific literature. Can we please stick to the research and FACTS and not allow this to become a schoolyard name calling session, I ask you as well as the readers to respect that. Going off on a rant of belittling those opposed to your views does NOT make your position stronger, quite the contrary.

It speaks volumes about your personal character.

May point out that if I was "evangelizing" the use of LSD and other drugs, I would not have cited and provided links to the information regarding the only two reports of overdose and death directly related to LSD. Nor would I have done the same in regards to HPPD, which to date is the only verified long term negative physiological effect from the use of psychedelics. I am presenting ALL the FACTS that I have come across, even if they are counter to my position. I thought that is what this debate was going to be about. Facts, not personal opinion. May I remind you that I fully expect you to provide links to any and ALL research you bring to the table so that I may have the opportunity to review it myself. If you provide reasonable, verifiable research that is directly relevant to LSD usage in humans in the dosages normally used by humans that disproves anything I believe I will be the first to acknowledge it. But I will not just take your interpretation as fact. If you are consulting with some researcher in this field I expect you to provide information about their PUBLISHED research or a means that I may contact this individual as well. You may send such contact info to me via e-mail rather than posting in the page. If you are not able or willing to do such then don't bother citing anything this person tells you. It is just hearsay then and not subject to verification. If I cannot review your sources then they should not be included in this debate. My feelings about this are very strong considering that you have stressed that this is YOUR hub and under your control. Considering that you have already grossly misrepresented the research which you have quoted, I will not accept anything you submit that can't be verified as legitimate research sources.

I do appreciate that you have thus far posted all my comments and links intact.

kymani , I assume your comment was sarcastic, it sure sounded that way.

SirDent, Did you even read the entire hub or any of the linked research?

Lucy D, I'm sorry that you would choose to ignore the facts and remain in ignorance about these things.

To those who support my "side" thank you.

Again to you, Hal and others, I am not about promoting drug use. But I am realistic, drugs have been used since as far back as written history and before. How many of you had a cup of coffee to start your day, I did. How many had a drink last night to unwind? I didn't, can't stand alcohol.

As long as people and especially kids are going to experiment with drugs than an honest non-biased education regarding them does a lot more towards harm reduction than lies and misinformation.

One final thought,

Hal if you are so opposed to drugs and alcohol why all the hubs teaching how to brew your own beer?


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 6 years ago from Southern California

This link for some reason didn't work. It is the risk assessment done prior to the research into LSD and cluster headaches.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:qGGR_ehqIb0J:.../riskreport.doc+cluster+headaches+and+lsd&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

Lucy D. The point is that their facts are just delusions fueled by their chemical addled brains. They are to be profoundly pitied. Thanks for your comment! Your first one anyway! :)

nhb: Caffeine vs. LSD? No, why don't we talk holding hands at the movies vs. gang rape. Sheesh dude... grow a brain cell.

Andrew: Pull the other one, it's got bells. I will disclose everything when it's done and not one minute before. One more attempt at baiting me and I'm deleting every comment you've ever posted. Capish?

Witness: Read above or get lost. Put up your house on the Vegas bet dude. I like being a slumlord.

Spanky: No, but it should have been. Got half the stonerbrains in the world up in arms. Good! It will give them something to think about between fixes.

Shapperty: Go play tiddleywinks on the fast lane of the freeway.

Dutch Cap: What is it, do you all have immediate gratification disorders? Talk about dealing with the dregs of society. Geez!

Raymond: Ya, pathetic... kind of like your pathetic attempt at irony. Take a writing class.

Peter: You need rehab more than Amy Winehouse.

engie: Go write novels. You bore me.

bddh: The government is generally wacko. But legalizing hard drugs LIKE LSD is such a moronic policy that it is not even up for consideration.

nemesis: I have the data and thus am on a completely sound scientific basis. The rest of what you've written is just waste of bandwidth. Go write your own blog.

Intelligence: Go join Shapperty.

Curious Kevin: WHAT ANOTHER ADHD PATIENT?

PB: Yeah, huh uh... What are you my self appointed mom? I get blasted I blast right back, so talk to the hand. And just because I don't drink doesn't mean I'm a prohibitionist. So let's get back to the FACTS at hand as this is just silly. The data on THIS TOPIC will be presented when finalized. It will be complete. That's the end of that conversation. The rest of your comments are irrelevant.

Now for my little P.S.: Drug users are despicable, miserable, wretched excuses for human beings. Don't look for any comfort here for your sick habits. All you'll find from me is keys to the nearest rehab. Hope you're having a wonderful CLEAN AND SOBER day! :)


nemesis 6 years ago

you just keep digging the hole deeper, don't you, hal?

stooping to personal insult shows incredible weakness and insecurity of self. i wish you the best, but i will not waste any more time with you and your misinformed self.

maybe someday, if you're lucky, someone will slip a few drops of love into your glass of water at the bar and you'll recognize that you don't actually know as much as you think you do.

peace, love, and light always.


LivingExample 6 years ago

"People who take psychedelic drugs are profoundly sick individuals, they need immediate and intensive treatment/rehab, and there are as many scientific, clinical, peer reviewed justifications for their belief in the salubrious effect of their drug of choice as there are in the benefits of enjoying cyanide cocktails. Druggies are nuts, freaks, and morons that need to be pitied and treated, forcibly if necessary in order to keep them and society safe."

Wow. As a previously avid psychedelic user, I would have to politely disagree. I've known many people who are stand up citizens with previous psychedelic drug use; some even still dabble with them today.

Both my girlfriend and I have extensive use of LSD as a therapeutic relationship stabilizer, for fun, for connection, and countless other things.

We still, time permitting, enjoy psychedelic roller coasters every now and then. But on that same note, we are both full-time employees providing our community with valuable services.

I am a network administrator for a local non-profit providing jobs for handicapped persons with no other means to make money. My girlfriend is a full-time nurse working in the cardiovascular intensive care unit.

Now please explain to me why we are "profoundly sick" and "need immediate and intensive treatment/rehab" for utilizing drugs that have been used before man started to record his own history?

What say you of Native Americans who have ritualized the use of the psychoactive cacti and have been preforming the acts long before white men arrived?

I am deeply hurt when such ignorance is displayed by someone meaning well for the human race.

In my humble opinion, psychedelics have increased my knowledge, has helped me further my career by allowing new perspectives to job related issues, over-dimensionalize (so to speak) communication systems, and give me a better understanding of my environments. This is very hard to explain if you have never utilized the abilities of such drugs. Indeed there are downsides, as some people cannot handle such power (the socializing abilities of alcohol and the drunk, for example), but are we to succumb to the few who cannot handle these substances and remove all peoples freedom to ingest what they will?

You will not debate that large quantities of alcohol cause bodily damage, right? This is equally true of all substances, even water. The fact that LSD falls into this same category is a moot point.

Or am I just an exception to _your_ rule?


SirDent 6 years ago

Say YES to Drugs!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

nemesis: I profoundly thank you for sharing your wisdom, now don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out.

LE: You are sick. The drugs have skewed your consciousness. Your perspective has no more credence than any of the mental patients who insist they're Napoleon. Seek help.

SirDent: Fortunately I know that you are a deeply religious man and are as opposed to them as I am. They definitely qualify as one of the greatest scourges on this Earth. We should both pray for the salvation of these poor wretched souls from this demonic plague.


halsheesh smoker 6 years ago

lemme guess...

you drive a huge pick up that gets 4 gallons to the mile with the big confederate flag in the back window that says "PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"


LivingExample 6 years ago

"You are sick. The drugs have skewed your consciousness. Your perspective has no more credence than any of the mental patients who insist they're Napoleon. Seek help. "

Do you believe mental patients could preform the everyday tasks that I accomplish?

How about my girlfriend? Would you refuse her medical services because she is has "no more credence than any of the mental patients"?

I believe you, sir, are afraid of defeat. PB_Smith handed you the most polite ass-whooping I've seen in my days.

Do you even answer anyone's questions? Meaningless dribble constituted all of your replies and do not acknowledge the majority populous' questions.


SirDent 6 years ago

Hal, I wonder how many of these are the same ones that posted on your CPU lapping hub. I would be checking out some IP's.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

hs: What part of TORONTO do you think is in America Einstein?

LE: Sick man. Pathetically trying to justify his weakness and impotence through drugs. You're supposed to be a role model? How can you not see how profoundly skewed your mental processes are? You are proving my point more than a thousand clinical reports. I truly do feel sorry for you. There is help available no matter where you live. There are caring professionals who can truly assist you in straightening out your devastated life. Seek them.

SirDent: I wouldn't be surprised if the Death To Hal Posse was represented here to some extent. But the bottom line is that there are way too many loonies in this world. :)


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 6 years ago from Southern California

No Hal I'm not your self appointed Mom. I just thought you would have at least enough integrity to stay out of any immature attacks, you knew they would come. I hoped you would at least adhere to the guidelines you yourself put forth;

"Now we can start a CIVILIZED debate on the ISSUES. We'll talk FACTS. I won't attack anyone personally and no one will attack me personally"

Those are your words aren't they?

From my reading none of the comments which you "blasted" attacked you personaly, just your position and methodology, there is a difference.

If this "exchange" of insults is silly, why do you get into it? Just ignore it and move on to the FACTS in this debate. I have refrained from any attacks on your person, I have only called into question your integrity and legitamacy as a researcher and journaist. I have said before some of your hubs are very informative and interesting.

All my comments in my recent post are very relevant to this debate. My comments about providing a means for myself and others to verify what you post is at the heart of this debate.

As far as referring to your hubs about alcohol and your comments opposing it's use really speaks to your character and your stand on drugs. I'm not making any of this up, it's right there for anyone to see.

For those who wish to bring the legality of certain substances into play, I said at the outset that this debate was not about the legality. The legal status of drugs in America is NOT based on harm. They are based on their use in medicine which dates back to the pure food and drug act enacted in 1906. Nixon knew that outlawing any substance outright was essentially a violation of a citizens constitutional rights, therefore the "scheduling" of substances was arrived at as a way of controlling drug substances. Don't post comments arguing this with me here. It is a matter of historical fact and if you can read this comment than you can just as easily research it online.

Here is a rather good look at the topic available online;

http://libertary.com/books/drug-crazy

There is also a four part series from the History channel entitled; "Hooked, Illegal drugs and how they got that way"

Which is also very informative on just how and why we have the current drug laws.

If you are interested in that topic, those are both good starting points. Again these are not my opinions but verifiable historical facts.

Seriously, lets keep this a civil discussion and review of the published research.


LivingExample 6 years ago

"How can you not see how profoundly skewed your mental processes are?"

The same reason you cannot see your own.

ALL HAIL DISCORDIA


geography major 6 years ago

hal: all of toronto is in america. i think you mean united states.


RandySaysRelax 6 years ago

Hal,

I have bookmarked this page and I am eagerly awaiting your counter-evidence to PBs research. No more slander, no more opinions I want to see hard(cited) facts.


yellowcab 6 years ago

I was looking forward to a respectful debate on both the positive and negative effects of LSD on human beings, but instead I just sat and read through alot of excuses and childish name calling. I am not sure that the content of PB's research can be disputed, but look forward to viewing Hals attempt at debunking solid scientific research.


Tungsten 6 years ago

Maybe Im just fueling the fire, maybe not.

In my life I have smoked a certain substance only once, and I am convinced that LSD is a fine substance.

I would be easier to consider the idea that LSD is harmful, if there was a well designed rebuttal to PB.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 6 years ago from Southern California

Hal how can you say "The point is that their facts are just delusions fueled by their chemical addled brains"

May I point out that all the information I have submitted is directly from "peer reviewed medical papers". I have kept personal opinion to a minimum, and where I did provide opinion, it is based on scientific research.

Are you now after accepting this challeng going to change the rules of engagement and redefine what constitutes "fact"?

Come on Hal, at least keep to your own rules and conditions for this debate.

Lucy D, thankyou for taking the time to read through the subject matter, I know there is a lot, and not being afraid to change your position in this. That shows a lot of character and you are welcome on my side of the fence since it would seem Hal has shunned you.


Dutch_Cap 6 years ago

Hal, thank you for your wonderful reply, but you didn't answer my question. It's probably my fault, though, these drugged up ramblings must be unreadable to a sane person.

*When* are you seeing this expert of yours? I just want to mark your awesome rebuttal on my calendar.


TheShrike 6 years ago

Hal, is there any comment that will not elicit a Tourettic fit from you at this point? The foundations for a captivating and reasoned debate have been laid, but the potential appears to be fading under the weight of your ego and anger management issues. Please step back from the precipice, I am really looking forward to this continuing as a rational debate. Thank you.


arch 6 years ago

hal, would you be willing to offer us some kind of timeline for when you intend on submitting your research to the debate at hand?

i for one am very curious, but grow impatient.


LMAO 6 years ago

"But the bottom line is that there are way too many loonies in this world. :)"

Indeed, Hal... Indeed haha


Andrew 6 years ago

"Drug users are despicable, miserable, wretched excuses for human beings."

So people who drink alcohol are despicable, miserable, wretched excuses for human beings?

I'm starting to think you are a troll. It makes me lose faith in humanity to witness someone so ignorant.

What personal attacks do you have in store for me this time?


roger 6 years ago

I think one thing research needs to consider is the "usual" dose that people take.

Almost anything taken in a high enough dose can be fatal or have harmful consequences. Drinking too much water can kill a person, and it's quite possible to OD on Aspirin and other OTC drugs people take daily.

This post and comments are very interesting - I'm going to need to come back when I have time to read everything in detail, however it's a shame to see Hal Licino resorting to personal and emotional attacks instead of trying to be objective and reasonable to his point across.


Tom Human 6 years ago

Hello, and thanks for the substantive information portrayed in this article.

I think everyone can agree that pregnant women shouldn't be taking strong drugs during pregnancy. Even if LSD had no physically toxic effects, the risk of the extreme psychological states is very great.

However, I have a lot of questions about the results.

The first is that in at least some of them, the dosages seem extremely high. Humans take LSD in dosages around 2 µg/kg body weight. Some of these studies appear to be using dosages hundreds or thousands of times greater. If you administered any known beneficial drug like aspirin in such quantities, the result would simply be death. But perhaps I'm misreading your units?

Help a critical person out and point out which of these show results at dosages within an order of magnitude of the standard human dose?

That LSD is a mutagen at high doses has been well-known for decades. But a dose of LSD would appear to be less of a mutagen than a cigarette, a known evil.

There's also the other question as to whether many of these results are actually "bad". Certainly, the brain chemistry of a person taking LSD is changed during the "trip" and for some time after - surely that is the point? - but are these changes negative, significant and permanent?

I have personally taken LSD about 100 times over the last 30 years. I have had excellent personal health during that time, personal success in two parallel careers, and a strong network of friends and family.

There is no question that LSD, like any drug, has a certain physical cost. I put it to you that taking LSD in dosages less than 5µg/kg body weight has fewer physical consequences than drinking enough to have a hangover the next day - something that's a Bad Idea but sometime billions of humans do from time to time. (And like drinking to excess, taking LSD is something that a pregnant woman should never do, of course.)


saulcooley5366 6 years ago

Hal, I truly wish you could see how hilarious you are... I wonder if you ever will. The first step might to be to take a logic course and learn about logical fallacies before embarrassing yourself further. Until you open yourself up to the possibility of being proven wrong, thus having to reassess your entire belief system, you will never understand science or logic.

What is truly annoying, however, is that there are so many people like you that stand in the way of personal freedom and a truly responsible drug policy that actually takes the good of the people into account.


Glis 6 years ago

Everyone, please stop posting. Let Hal post his factually based response to PB.


fractal fan 6 years ago

hal: i stumbled across this on the internet today and it immediately made me think of you.

enjoy:

http://i.imgur.com/wXmHg.png


Zach Pearson 6 years ago

I suppose I should take what Hal says with a grain of salt.

Its painfully obvious that he has been demolished in this exchange.


Delusid 6 years ago

"How can you not see how profoundly skewed your mental processes are?"

Oh. Well if his method of thinking is so obviously skewed, would you care to point out the many alleged aspects of it which are? You keep repeating how delusional all of your 'opponents' are, but fail to explain how.

LE has compassionately provided jobs for the handicapped. But, because he has previously used psychedelics, he becomes scum to you? Are you aware that the plethora of individuals in this society that you condescend to about using drugs, are the very ones you depend on in order to live the life you do?

Let me make it simple for you: In spite of the many positive acts of compassion which people selflessly bring into the world, their (previous) use of psychoactive substances nullifies the substantiality of those acts and of their character because __________

Go for it. We're all ears.


joey. 6 years ago

Hey Hal. I wanted to commend you for staging this debate. A debate, I'm sure you'll agree, with relevant and valid points on both sides. I too bookmarked this page in the hope to come back later, and read your "straight" response.

This was until I started scrolling down.

Find your nearest dictionary, and look up the word "hermit".


a fan of mr smith 6 years ago

I am not gay and I am a man.

Yet I still want to marry MR PB Smith


Not a troll 6 years ago

Hal is obviously a troll, which is obvious.


burger 6 years ago

Hal, you say LE is sick, yet you are the one who believes in a invisible man in the sky.

You are scary. You seem like one of the type of person who would force people to conform to your liking.


Tamarind 6 years ago

Yes, this is a heavy drug that will do damage. Neat hub. Thanks for the insight.


SenatorPalpatine 6 years ago

Hal, I'm very much looking forward to your attempts at countering PB's extensive response to your article. Good luck, you'll need it.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 6 years ago from Southern California

Hal I'm confused about something. If you had extensive research that supports your position before you even published this hub why didn't you use it?

Why would you start off with a study that when read in it's entirety completely supports MY position and not yours?

One would think that you would start the hub with your most conclusive research and put me in my place from the start.

Instead you chose research that either didn't support your position or was so erroneous relevant to human usage of LSD to render the research useless in this debate.

I can't wait to hear the name of the preeminent researcher you are in contact with and have the opportunity to review his findings.

You know you could also thank me for all the page views this hub is giving you .


Suave 6 years ago

Hal, you've only personified every negative opinion you have in regards to so-called "drug users". Your drug is self-righteousness and tt's no wonder you have so much time to write this stuff; no one could bear you in real life. Maybe you should indulge in the illicits and lighten-up a bit.

PB schooled you. End of story. Everyone who reads your hub only sees his rational argument and your childish defensiveness.


peanut 6 years ago

the ownage is strong on this one pb!


UW biochem major 6 years ago

Hal: would you be up for discussing a few _specific_ case studies?

What do you think of Apple found and CEO Steve Jobs' admitted use of LSD? More than admitting it, he has praised it as a creativity aid and as very helpful in his product design and business ventures.

Cite: http://gizmodo.com/5301470/the-life-of-steve-jobs-...

Microsoft found and former CEO Bill Gates has a similar but less cavalier history of LSD use.

Cite: http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/billgates/l/bl...

Finally, have you looked into the life of Albert Hoffman, the inventor of LSD? He reported using it hundreds of times over the course of his life, the first time taking an amount an order of magnitude larger than what is considered a recreational dose. He discovered LSD relatively early in his career as a chemist and lived to be 100 years old. A successful father, chemist, and Swiss citizen, his life seems to be a testament against your claim.

As one of the few college students out there who doesn't consume drugs or alcohol, I find these case studies to be adequate evidence for me to not condemn the LSD use of my peers.

What do you think of the lives these men have led and the positive influence they claim LSD has had on them?


Juice_Newton 6 years ago

I just created an account so I could post regarding this discussion. After reading the majority of the posts in this thread I have come to a few conclusions.

1)PB is a remarkable researcher with a serious knack for dissecting arguments and revealing their flaws.

2)Hal has nothing. He created a fallacious argument based on research that is inherently flawed and does not lead to the conclusion he desires. This is both invalid and unsound.

3)Lastly I would like to reiterate the fact that drug laws do not and cannot create a moral code. Any thorough research into the development of modern American drug law will show that the majority of these laws were created before any empirical testing had even occurred.

Imagine for a minute a situation where morality was really derived from law, then think about the past for a minute, it sure gets confusing when you consider a time when said law doesn't exist.

PB, well done my friend.

Hal, I love watching you squirm.


riley 6 years ago

hal youve already lost.. people like you and your inability to be coherent are one if the biggest problems of this country


Kristina 6 years ago

So...instead of attacking every person that posts on your Hub, why don't you finish your "research," talk to whatever doctor you said you would get information from, and act like an adult?


streak 6 years ago

Hahaha, Hal's been completely and thoroughly debunked and there's pretty much no point in arguing with him any more since he's clearly demonstrated his own biases and close-mindedness.


A CANADIAN 6 years ago

ah nuts, the nut is a canadian.


Doug 6 years ago

Was this whole thing a set-up? It sounds like this "Hal" guy is just trolling.


Kristoffer Carlsson 6 years ago

Hey, just read through this thread. Very interesting.

Never done drugs, probably never will. Damn Hal, that is some serious ass whopping you are receiving. The name calling further shows this.

It is nothing bad with having your hypothesis shown wrong. In science this is just as valuable as it is if it would have been shown to be right,


normal human being 6 years ago

Hal, you said: "The point is that their facts are just delusions fueled by their chemical addled brains."

If this is true, why is it that I (who have never tried LSD) can accept the facts presented by PB and other commenters, including LivingExample? How is the research that PB presented delusional?

In response to LivingExample you said: "How can you not see how profoundly skewed your mental processes are? You are proving my point more than a thousand clinical reports."

Please explain how skewed his mental processes are. And how is he proving your point? From what I gather, your point is that people who have tried or use LSD are pathetic losers who are unstable. However, LivingExample and his girlfriend are helping people in the world who need help. Please explain how this is unstable.

Not every single person who has tried drugs is perfect. But not every single person who hasn't tried drugs or who believes they are a "demonic plague" is perfect either. Nobody is perfect. And that alone should make us accept one another as human beings. We are all connected on at least that level. If we have to live together in this world, we might as well be civil to one another.


Wolter 6 years ago

So what's the ETA on your presentation, Hal? We're getting antsy here in the peanut gallery.

When do you meet with your scientist buddy?


rougy 6 years ago

I've done over 500 hits of LSD in my lifetime.

I wouldn't recommend it to any one else, but I can say with certainty that the reports of LSDs physical impairment of a person's body and mind are grossly exaggerated.

LSD expands the mind and shows a person a glimpse of the world from a perspective that would be impossible to access otherwise.

It should not be treated as heroin or opium or methamphetamine, because it is a different experience entirely, and the dosage is a fraction of a fraction of what is required from the other drugs.

You either won't believe me, or you'll pity me, or maybe you'll hate me for what I just said, but be that as it may, I'll leave you with this:

I'm glad I tried it; my life is fuller as a result.


normal human being 6 years ago

Oh, and just to clarify, I did not mean to liken caffeine to LSD. Obviously they are not the same. I only meant to point out that all drugs have pros and cons. Things aren't always best looked at in extremes. Certainly it's helpful to know the extremes, but the gray area in between should never be ignored.


Russell 6 years ago

Hal Said: I don't agree with it and I will never agree with it

Thats pretty closed minded. Seems your mind is made up without looking at all the evidence.


in yo face 6 years ago

hal:

sick man. pathetically trying to justify his backwards and skewed position with cherry picked half-truths and hearsay. youre supposed to be a scientist? how can you not see how profoundly skewed your mental processes are? you are proving your oppositions point more than a thousand clinical reports. i TRULY do feel sorry for you (very truly, you are a sad pathetic little man with a spate of complexes). however, there is help available no matter where you live. there are caring professionals who can truly assist you in straightening out your backwards, ignorant, misinformed life. seek them.


reddit 6 years ago

there is no god


Zack 6 years ago

really hal? just ignore the online name calling nonsense and just focus on finishing up that rebuttal to PB's argument. i cant wait to see how this debate turns out.

thanks a bunch!


Acadian 6 years ago

Hal, you're from Toronto? Dear lord! You make me ashamed to say I'm Canadian as well. I must ask, even if banned, what your agenda is. What personal grievance do you have against this (particularly overwhelming) drug research? Did a mentally unbalanced individual knock you into some oncoming traffic on Yonge, and you assumed he was high on methamphetamines or LSD?

It's been a wild ride following you, you might appreciate know you're up on a few social networking sites, and the argument is being followed. A great audience, to be sure!

We can't wait for your comprehensive response!


Redmoons 6 years ago

Hal, you have embarrassed yourself so completely that at this point not even a child would take you seriously.

How can you call yourself a scientist? It doesn't matter that you have faith in your own research if somebody else can disprove it with hard data.


Nick 6 years ago

This is what I call peer review..


Onicil Lah 6 years ago

Hal. Thanks for taking the time to write this article and for allowing opposing views to be heard. PB made some great points and I look forward to your thorough reply to his comments. Seems some of the people posting have got you all riled up. I trust future replies will be ones of substance rather than defensive name calling, and outright ignoring the evidence in front of you.


Jon Simon 6 years ago

How can you not see how profoundly skewed your mental processes are?

hehe, that´s actually not a very good question Hal.

Regards

Jon Simon.

ps. the answer lies in the question...shhhhh nobody tell Hal.


Some Dude 6 years ago

In the end, nothing is going to matter. If you want to burn, trip, go ahead and do it.


kentataro 6 years ago

thanks reddit for sending me here.... sad sad... not for you Hal, but for PB, all that effort spent...


John 6 years ago

I don't know why you guys bother. How can you argue with someone who refuses to see any other side of the debate than his own?

Well done, PB.

Hal, I sincerely hope you learn how to debate properly one day.


exomniac 6 years ago

Congratulations, Hal. You've immortalized your idiocy on teh internetz.


EyeInTheSky 6 years ago

Well, I know I definitely can't wait for this rebuttal. Time for round 2.


dr.feelogood 6 years ago

yo hal, first time seeing this hub and from the looks of it PB wants a fair debate and your over here calling people who take the time to come to this little page druggies....

not cool brah


Ampersand 6 years ago

I see that hal licino has been reduced to ad hominem attacks. Looks like the diplomacy dike is cracking.


Interspatial 6 years ago

After reading this post I'm glad that there are still some people who use the old, tried-and-true methodology of critical thinking. Hal, it has been made clear that you are unable to think critically and respond with emotional attacks. You are letting your emotional predisposition override the facts that have been presented to you. You have made obvious logical fallacies, whereas PB_Smith has not. You are also engaged in dichotomous (black-and-white) thinking. Things are not that simple Hal. Maybe you should open your eyes and mind and hope that you may one day learn to think critically. I find hilarious that you make ignorant attacks on educated and intelligent people. Anyone with a "brain-cell" can see right through your bullshit.


DKarma 6 years ago

Hal are you ever going to get to your response to PB's posts or are you just going to keep looking like you got owned on your own hub? Seriously. I was looking forward to a good debate but PB just destroyed you w/ his first 5 posts. The other 20 were just making you look even more foolish.


Dave 6 years ago

PB I am very impressed with your argument. Hal you failed and lost badly. Do yourself a favor and don't reply anymore to Hal as you make yourself look more vapid. SirDent you remind me of the fat schoolyard kid instigator (what a good religious man of values you are!)


GeorgeT 6 years ago

That was the debate equivalent of Pacquiao vs Cotto. Well done, PB_Smith!


JT 6 years ago

Hal,

You're bigoted as all hell.

You were caught and called out for selectively choosing segments of text that you thought supporting the personal war on drugs you are waging, and your response is to ignore it and start with the personal attacks.

Are you a christian by any chance?


JPco 6 years ago

Hal, I'm curious why you haven't started your counter argument yet?


6 years ago

Hal: "I don't drink alcohol and haven't been drunk since I was a teenager, but that's not the point."

...So, you drank alcohol when you were a teen. That explains it!


Amortentia 6 years ago

Mr. Hal:

Hello, I am a 15 year old girl. While reading your article, I was appalled. I am not a drug user, nor am I interested in using drugs. But forgive me when I say, I believe I have more mental maturity than you do. The name calling and personal insults really show that you have nothing intelligent to say, therefore you get defensive and start attacking people, which also shows you as insecure. I am truly disappointed that a man such as yourself, that's supposed to inform our generation and transmit knowledge, would stoop as low as to hide behind your computer screen and accuse people of being drug addicts, suffering ADHD, having mental problems and being morons. In my opinion, mental issues are no subject to insult people with, because they could happen to anyone, and it still wouldn't be their fault. It makes me understand that even with all your research and studies, you are still an ignorant person. If I were you, I would have accepted my mistake and retired with my dignity, which you lost [in my perspective] when people with solid arguments and a respectful attitude were attacked by you. That's what an adult would do. And I'm sorry to have to say all this to you, but I'd say it again to your face if I ever got the chance. I hope you see the wrong in your ways and try to set a better example for us.


Matt 6 years ago

Hal are you going to reply to PB Smith or what? All you've done is attack the people that commented. I thought you were actually respond to his claims.


Hal 3000 6 years ago

I can't let you do that, hal.

You know what we call people who hate other people with different opinions? Nazis.


Bravo 6 years ago

Hal, after reading the comments here and your replies, I can't help but conclude that you are a huge, beautiful, incredibly talented Internet troll. I commend you for your dedication and perseverance in this endeavor. I have certainly been entertained thus far, and look forward to more amusement over the coming days. Keep up the good work.


rbtmc 6 years ago

So when are you seeing your doctor friend hal?

Looking forward to the rebuttal...


SirDent 6 years ago

One thing is for sure. You do know how to get traffic to your hubs. ;)


Ian Onicil  6 years ago

"NOW ARE YOU TRYING TO BAIT ME TOO? GEEZ WHAT IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE? "

Geez, are you sure you aren't taking drugs Hal? You seem awful paranoid for a sober person.


bmp 6 years ago

Hal:

This is not a black and white issue. A person who has tried an illegal drug in moderation is far from an addict that needs help. Your brain itself produces a number of tryptamines (the same chemicals found in a number of psychedelic drugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryptamine), so when you go to sleep and dream your brain is giving you a tiny dose of psychedelic drugs.

it's a moderate dose though, so don't consider yourself a tryptamine addict because you sleep every night. But do consider yourself someone who trips every night, experiencing psychotic behavior and extreme hallucinations, caused by a chemical regularly dosed by your own body. Yes my friend, you are a druggie.

but alas, there is more to your fear of psychedelic drugs than simply becoming an addict. The fear is becoming, or rather labeled, a 'druggie'. after all, you know with great certainty that a druggie is scum and useless waste of society. They do it to themselves, without shame, for no other purpose than to escape their pathetic reality. Do you truly feel sorry for them? When I was a young child, I didn't. I knew back then 'what these people REALLY are', as you do now.

But it turns out, it's not really a black and white issue as you so truly believe. After reading all of your replies to everyone's polite (and a few impolite) comments you seem to fall into a spiral of regression. I understand you're waiting for the 'perfect argument' to counter with. That 'white' to PB's 'black'. But this thread really isn't about LSD anymore. It's about winning the argument. and you like winning, don't you, Hal? far too much i'd say, as you're half-witty replies are no more than lambastings to fuel you r domination-mode ego, which is in full swing. You're blinding yourself- the power tickles you so much you use a smiley face at the end of each lambaste for exclamation. especially when warning someone you'll delete their posts. Feels like a warm bath in chocolate syrup doesn't it? The King in his warm syrupy bath, yet sceptre firm in hand, splashing and smearing; unaware of the stooper...

So let go of the constipated smiley face exclamation. Pretend you don't have the power for a moment. Being a 'druggie' is not as bad as you think. Most things in this world are not as bad as you think. And yes, you can still drive traffic with a blog that is driven by productive information rather than a blog with a 'flame board' construct. It's also a blog I would frequent.


Albert S. 6 years ago

This is the greatest thing I have ever seen on the internet. Hal you are... I mean...

They should have sent a poet.

I don't have the words to express how epic this conversation is or how brilliantly it displays ego driven delusional reasoning.

Hal, please do not disappoint with your eventual response to PB's presentation of research.


myself 6 years ago

Hal, I am not an advocate of drug use, nor have I partaken in any illicit substances, but I would have to say that PB's comments and refutation of your articles pretty much ended your credibility.

Add to that, you stated that your opinion cannot be changed by evidence, and you fail at a basic undergraduate level to follow scientific methodology.

Sure, you can argue that drugs are bad. Many people can argue that; for all sorts of reasons. Unfortunately in the way that PB refuted your argument, you were unable to argue that LSD is dangerous, USING THE WORKS YOU CITED.

Furthermore, any attempt to present findings from another researcher would be suspect as you have already shown that you cannot provide evidence without editing it to fit your bias.

PB wins this debate by a mile.


LOL hal L-O-L. 6 years ago

Hal just respond already, stop dicking around and getting into petty e-fights. Where is the facts behind your statements? Please stop wasting time and get it done so you can prove your point. Just seems like you are delaying the inevitable.


A-Murican 6 years ago

Hal-Licino-Genics are bad because my bible says so, LSD = LuciferSatanDevil... WWJD LSD?


Mr. Troll 6 years ago

I applaud your brilliant trolling effort. Hal, you are a god.


Teetotaler 6 years ago

I don't drink or do drugs, but Hal, it has been a month - more than enough time to respond to PB's well reasoned rebuttals. You could even take a page from his book, and respond point by point over several days. It is hard, even for one like me who is philosophically on your "side" to take your arguments seriously when you apparently have not even read the articles you yourself cited well enough to answer PB's points in a timely fashion. As such, your claims to have overwhelming evidence to reveal after talking to "the doc" seem even more dubious. Either you understand the evidence well enough to address a single point in 4 weeks, or you need somebody else to certify your conclusions, in which case you were not qualified to make the assertions you made at the outset. This sort of faulty logic and subsequent descent into name-calling only hurts our "side" of the argument, and has been very disheartening to read. You have hurt our cause far more than any of those at whom you shout insults ever could.


Redditor 6 years ago

Hal has the DATA and McCarthy had a list.


tom 6 years ago

Hal, you exhort everyone to refrain from ad hominem attacks--then label anyone who disagrees with you a mentally incapable drug addict and criminal? And you STILL haven't responded to any of PB's many points and specific citations, or provided links (it's real easy--just copy and paste!) to the many articles in your original post which seem to not exist.


Guest 6 years ago

Seeing Hal struggle to maintain his position in the face of a clearly superior argument is amusing. However, it is also pitiful.

Hal, please mature past the age of 12 and try not to let your personal shortcomings, religious and social views cloud your judgement in such matters.

Despite what you may believe, you are one of the "loonies" in this world; a fearmonger and deeply ignorant individual.

Good luck in your future endeavors but please stay away from topics you know nothing about.


Lewis 6 years ago

I don't understand; none of the people you are calling "sick" and "drug addled" are actually PROMOTING the use of LSD, they're simply debunking the claim that LSD is harmful. Of course the world would go down the pan if everyone was constantly tripping, everyone knows that. This is science, not ethics.

My point is that the people you are debating have never said "oh, LSD is good." They're saying that LSD doesn't have the effects that you claim it has, and those are two very different concepts.


BLG 6 years ago

Enough with the opinions, post some facts, Hal.


danaeciousv 6 years ago

PB_ Smith. Can you please post your own hub with your argument? There is no real point in having it on this page. Hal is delusional and probably on crack if he thinks that he can prove you wrong. I think he's a lost cause, my friend. The sad part is, he almost had me fooled, because I was too lazy to check the references. Thank you very much, I look forward to opening my mind one day.

Hal- either post your argument in the next 24-48 hours or consider yourself defeated. You've had weeks and weeks to comply. Times up.


Raye 6 years ago

@Hal:

If you are so secure, why do you resort to pithy insults? Don't you realize the most complete way to metaphorically beat someone down is by showing them they are wrong, using actual logical arguments? That's what PB did to you, and that's what you now find yourself unable to do.

Ditch the personalized, meaningless insults... they mean nothing. Respond to us (especially PB) with real substantive argument.

Furthermore, I am deeply disturbed that you threatened to delete all of Andrews posts. He said nothing profane or hateful. He exposed your faulty reasoning and faulty methods. You have the power to delete posts in and shape the appearance of this forum. Don't mistake that as a power to alter the legitimacy of what other people have to say.

I will say this to preemptively respond to an insult from you, though this statement shouldn't matter as far as the content of my post goes: I am not a drug user. I am merely offended on behalf of reason and science and the fundamental principles of real debate.


Mr. Rochester 6 years ago

I am curious how I will be replied to.

Let me make a series of statements to the originator of this discussion, the man known as Hal.

I am prepared to reveal that:

1. I am a Christian; I pray, I read the Bible, and I attempt to follow in good deed.

2. I am a student who is very interested in the non-bias nature of the scientific method although I study composition and rhetoric, which is most definitely not a hard science.

3. I have never taken drugs (beyond caffeine), nor have I ever had over two drinks in one day (ie: not gotten drunk).

4. Looking at the arguments placed by both you and by PB_Smith, I find that PB_Smith has really accessed the true nature of the studies cited and has been able to solidify a fairly conservative claim about both the lack of studies finding that LSD in regular doses is explicitly harmful, and a claim that there are potential benefits the drug may have in certain, specific instances.

Now, seeing as you've called those who have posted in agreement with PB before some pretty ugly names even when they do not refer to a position on LSD but simply question the possible bias in your approach, I am curious what you will call me - a person who disagrees with you, but presumably carries some of the same societal markers as you.

Maybe you will try and strip my societal markers so that you can make a claim on my person-hood, or add to your own markers so that you can similarly make a claim on me.

Because I disagree with you, (or more accurately, because I agree with someone who disagrees with you,) am I insane, and what part of my character reveals this to you? Maybe, if you attempt to insult me, you will find your insults landing closer and closer to the demographic in which you lie.


wow 6 years ago

Hal, you have wronged the people of the internet. I am sorry if you have any insecurities that are or will prevent you from accepting defeat, as you are being beaten down a slippery slip. I am extremely interested as to what will be brought up in your reply.

P.S.

As an individual who has dealt with ADD my entire life, shows of ignorance from the people like you regarding the disorder worry and insult me. Your references were not even remotely relevant to ADHD or the posts/posters in question.


Gelgemek 6 years ago

Hal, as I started reading this, though disagreeing with your arguments as the posts went on (PB_Smith raised excellent counters to your posts), I was hoping to read a well informed debate with no personal attacks. As the posts have piled in, and you've refrained from bringing up any more points on your case but made direct attacks to the readers, mental patients, people with ADHD etc. Can we hope to read something with merit from you soon? Or just back and forth banter between yourself and the other posts.

Don't let the other readers discourage you, we'd love to hear what else you have to say on the effects of LSD.

Fuck yes Toronto.


dobieman 6 years ago

Hal, there's quite the thread over on Reddit discussing your scientific capabilities. Care to join in there, or are you scared?


Lore of Tao 6 years ago

I think the real take home here is that if you're going to do LSD, then do it when you're a bit further developed. early 20s or so.

Other than that, Hal you have nothing to stand on with the studies YOU POSTED! I don't understand how you're going to counter-argue PB, so I just wanna say there's no harm in taking it like a man and admit LSD isn't as detrimental as you claim.

Also, you have to understand that science isn't black as you seem to appear to report it. I don't know if you're fully aware of this and producing some gimmick to create a fuss or you're really obliviously subjective in your stance and don't know how to interpret scientific publications.

I'm not advocating the use of LSD by any means, but if people want to experiment and try it out then I don't think it could hurt.

Though, if you wanna try LSD, you might as well do it the most common way possible via injection. *rolls eyes

I feel like I'm reading a debate on Creationism vs Evolution.


The Onion 6 years ago

I…I think it's finally over. Our reactionary emotional response seems to have stopped it dead in its tracks. If I'm right, all we have to do now is smugly reiterate our half-formed thesis and—oh, no! For the love of God, no! It's thoughtfully mulling things over!

Run! Run! It's making reasonable, fact-based arguments!

Quickly! Hide behind self-righteousness! The ad hominem rejoinders—ready the ad hominem rejoinders! Watch out! Dodge the issue at hand! Question its character and keep moving haphazardly from one flawed point to the next!

All together now! Put every bit of secondhand conjecture into it you've got!

Goddamn it, nothing's working! It's trapped us in our own unsubstantiated claims! We need to switch fundamentally unsound tactics. Hurry, throw up the straw man! Look, I think it's going for it. C'mon…c'mon…yes, it's going for it! Now hit it with the thing that one guy told us once while it's distracted by our ludicrous rationalizations!

Gah! It's calmly and evenhandedly deflecting everything we're throwing at it. Our deductive fallacies are only making it stronger! Wait…what on earth is it doing now? Oh, no, it has sources! My God, it's defending itself with ironclad sources! Someone stop the citing! Please, please stop the citing!

The language is impenetrable! For all that is good and holy, backpedal with all your might!

Where are the children? Someone overprotect the children! They cannot be exposed to this kind of illuminative reasoning. Their young, open minds are much too vulnerable to independent thought. We have to shield them behind our unshakeable intolerance for critical thinking.

What?!? Noooooooooo! Richard! For the love of God, it's convinced Richard!

No time for tears now. Richard's mind has been changed forever. But we mustn't let it weaken our resolve. Mark my words, our ignorance will hold, no matter the cost. Now, more than ever, we have to keep floundering ahead with blind faith in our increasingly fallacious worldview.

For Richard's sake.

What's that? Now it's making an appeal to reason? Never! Do you hear me, you eloquent, well-read behemoth? Never! We'll die before we recognize what we secretly know to be true! The cognitive dissonance only makes our denial stronger!

We have but one hope left: passive-aggressive slights disguised as impersonal discourse.† Okay, everyone, careful now…careful…if this is going to work, we have to arrogantly assume that it won't be smart enough to catch on to our attempt to salvage some feeling of superiority and—oh, God, it's calling us out! Quick, avoid eye contact and stammer an apology! Tell it we were just joking! Tell it we were joking!

Arrgh! Our pride! Oh, Lord, our pride! It burns!

All is lost. We don't stand a chance against its relentless onslaught of exhaustive research and immaculate rhetoric. We may as well lie down and—Christ, how it pains me to say it—admit that it's right. My friends, I would like to take these last few moments of stubborn close-mindedness to say that it's been an honor to dig myself into this hole with you.

Unless…wait, of course! Why didn't we think of it before? Volume! Sheer volume! It's so simple. Quickly now, we don't have much time! Don't let it get a word in edgewise! Derisively cut it off mid-sentence! Now, launch the sophomoric personal attacks! Louder, yes, that's it, louder! Be repetitive, juvenile, and obstinate! It's working! It's working!

We've done it! It's walking away and shaking its head in disgust! Huzzah! Finally—defeated with a single three-minute volley of irrelevant, off-topic shouting!

Ironic, really, isn't it?


Damien Flynn 6 years ago

I've never done psychoactive drugs of any kind, and I always took it for granted that LSD is harmful. In this exchange, however, I see nothing but name-calling and vague promises of impending doom offered in response to the very detailed and convincing rebuttal by PB Smith. Sorry, Hal, it's too late for your "annihilation": you've already convinced me which side of this debate is worth paying further attention to.


BillyReuben 6 years ago

As a person who has zero qualifications to comment on the scientific validity of any of these statements, and as a person who has never touched a drug in my life I would like to make it clear that while I do not support the use of drugs, I also do not support the methods with which Hal Licino has attempted to discredit the use/users of these drugs.


Sensible Stoner 6 years ago

So baked right now, and this is amazing. The human mind is an amazing thing. It must be very bizarre to be in Hals spot right now. He is obviously defeated, and he keeps post-poning his defeat by name calling and assuring everyone his "report" will be completed "soon".

This will either end by another flurry of hateful comments from Hal as he continues his downward spiral, or he will just stop commenting. Hal, you need to take a giant step back from this entire post, don't take it so personal. Imagine you were someone else watching this conversation. You see one sensible man presenting facts, links, and enough confidence to not need to "name call".

On the other side you have what appears to be someone in the stages of denial, fully knowing there is no refute to this argument. Hal, give it up. The only one you're fooling anymore is yourself, and we all know the easiest one to fool is yourself.


Johnny 6 years ago

"Drug users are despicable, miserable, wretched excuses for human beings."

Wow...

You know 40%+ of people in the USA have smoked pot right?

I like how you call "LE"'s mental processes skewed right after demonizing half of the United States for taking drugs that mimic the effects found of many legal prescriptions.


RIchard 6 years ago

Hal. Please go back and read your comments out loud. This will help you out immensely.

Also, you should kindly step out of the scientific community. This is not your forte. Quite the opposite, actually.


disgusted and amused 6 years ago

Wow! I have no words for the immaturity and animosity Hal has displayed in the treatment of fellow humans debating with him politely.

To everyone but Hal, I suggest you quit feeding the troll.

Additionally, don't expect any sort of rebuttal any time soon. Actually, don't ever expect it. It won't happen.


Laughing 6 years ago

You got owned Hal. Grow up and admit it.

I will be waiting to see your amazing response to PB.


Abe 6 years ago

I'm very appreciative of PB posting all of that real information. I would come back to see if Hal ever posts any studies to try to back up his opinion but apparently he would rather try to personally attack people so I won't bother giving him the ad views.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

Hi, Sir Dent, yeah, pretty interesting crowd indeed! You know I don't play for Adsense traffic, besides the vast majority of these bozos are too drug-addled to actually click on ads! But it is FUN! Kind of like my Hub on Bearbaiting Commenters. It's hilarious to see how worked up they get! :)

Everyone else: out of the last 90+ comments 57 are from proxy IPs, so thanks for wasting keystrokes and bandwidth, LOSER! Keep swapping IPs and keep being a moron. You are profoundly entertaining me.

As to the others who are (or may be) real people. I LOVE TO WATCH YOU SQUIRM. The more you insult me for not replying quickly enough to YOUR schedule, the more I consider holding the disclosure of all the massive clinical data which demolishes everything you stand for... off for a while, even maybe right through the holidays. I can just see the stoners fuming and typing and fuming and typing right through Christmas! That would be so much FUN! Just to prove what a bunch of ignorant, pathetic and easily played druggie dummies you are.

HA!

Do something productive with your lives. Go to rehab!

NOW SQUIRM! Have a nice day... hmm... maybe a nice week... or maybe a nice month! Oh, and Happy Hole-In-Your-Head-Days! :)


Lasaruse 6 years ago

As many others in this comment section, I too was hoping for a civilized debate on the positive and negative effects of LSD. And Hal, as for your comment regarding how drug users are "despicable, miserable, wretched excuses for human beings," need I remind you that almost all amazing minds have used drugs at one point or another. Now, I hope I do not need to remind you that nicotine and alcohol are a drug, well probably the worst of them all IF we are basing conclusions on death tolls, have been consumed by practically everyone. Caffeine, another extremely common drug, also used in some way, shape, or form, by everyone, everyday. However, I thought you also might like this as well. The following points have all been found on this site:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2783.html

-Sigmund Freud, easily one of the greatest minds in psychology, took cocaine

-Richard Feynman, a brilliant individual who helped design the nuclear bomb and also won a noble prize for his theory of quantum electrodynamics, experimented with marijuana and LSD

-and many more

So Hal, before you go making arbitrary remarks regarding how despicable a drug user is, remember that you too partake in the use of drugs.

P.S. Have a nice day :)


MatrixScript 6 years ago

Hal,

We are Reddit,

We are legion.

We are eagerly awaiting your response to PB's arguments.

Happy Writing!

love,

~^\MatrixScript/^~


oujheush 6 years ago

Hey PB! You rock man! Thanks for all of the work you put into these comments and know that Reddit is watching and approves.

Hal, we're all eagerly awaiting your response. Feel free to submit a link once you submit it and I'm sure we'll provide some traffic.

Cheers!


Francisco 6 years ago

Hal, have you given up? I'd understand if I were in your position. PB makes a fantastic argument and as such I would actually say the best thing that you can do in this situation to salvage what little dignity you have would be to concede defeat and apologize for your heckling and childish name-calling.


David B. 6 years ago

Hal, last time I checked, all of Toronto (and Canada) is in America. Since it would probably be a bit too humbling for you, I recommend not posting my comment. And since I don't think your credibility can withstand another hit, I suggest you amend your comment to hs to read "The U.S." rather than "America".

Looking forward to your absolute PWNage of PB.


Agnosticized 6 years ago

I have come to the conclusion that Hal is just an extremely clever troll who has been successful in provoking the internet hate machine. To think for a second that his point of view is objective, especially when held in contrast to his numerous ad-hominem arguments, is pure idiocy. However if I am wrong, I eagerly await your rebuttal Hal. Through past observation, I've found it hard to utilize evidence to support one's position when the evidence doesn't exist in the first place.


scientificTempura 6 years ago

Hal will commense his scientific rebuttal shortly, please stand by...


Hal's pal 6 years ago

I'm just stopping by to make sure you know Hal is a troll, and any response he gives is him just trying to get reactions.

He probably does the ganja.


Atlas 6 years ago

Hal you've been Reddit'd. Your ignorance has now been put on display for the entire world to witness. Pray that 4chan treats your pathetic soul with mercy.


TIHKAL 6 years ago

I am eagerly awaiting an earnest rebuttal to PB_Smith's points. I have used LSD in the past, but I'm more concerned with knowing the whole truth rather than someone vindicating my previous actions.


Ben Green 6 years ago

I am very much looking forward to Hal's response to PB's posts. As they were long, insanely detailed, and thoughtful, I expect this will take Hal some time. In the meantime, EVERYONE ELSE enjoy a nice frosty glass of SHUT THE HELL UP so Hal doesn't have to waste his time responding to your gratuitous arguments.


estein 6 years ago

This has been a great discussion, in my book. Hal, thanks for initiating it and giving us references to start off. PB, thanks for your rigorous research and polite commentary.

To all the trolls posting here, you aren't helping with your sarcasm and insults. Thanks Hal for blocking some of the other even louder and ruder ones; having adminned online discussions in my time I know it is hard to draw the line correctly between who is just wrong and who should be excluded.

That said, Hal, you are not a scientist. You have misrepresented and misused nearly every reference you have given. For awhile you attempted to counter PB's responses but once it became abundantly clear that you didn't have a leg to stand on, you devolved into insults and ignoring people who were proving you wrong. To be politely proven wrong is one of the most positive ways a thinking person can assist you in your quest for truth. It is juvenile to not accept it.

Hal, looking forward to your post when you finish it up with your associate. I'm sure PB is as well, and I'm looking forward to his riposte as well.

All I can take away from this is that Hal is not using the scientific method, PB is, and that LSD is probably not for me.


thatoneguy 6 years ago

Hal, after skimming through some of your comments and replies I have come to the conclusion that you are either bi-polar or a 14yr old girl.


Peta 6 years ago

I'm eagerly awaiting your response - however, I assume I will be left disappointed and unmoved by your efforts.

Therefore, I'll set aside my curiosity of how you can possibly dispute a large amount of polite, reasoned and fact-based arguments and instead focus on another issue.

You mentioned you had spent 30 years as an editor and a writer - I'm confused as to how you could possibly tolerate presenting yourself in a fashion that barely rivals the argument style of a 13 year old girl on myspace.

Your responses in this comment thread have been full of personal insults, poor grammar and frequent misused capitalisation.

As a journalist - I would be deeply ashamed depicting my writing ability in such a way. I can only assume your 'career' was short lived and mostly hobby based until the joys of the internet granted you a public voice.

Also, before you discount my statements as a 'crazy person' or 'drug addict' - allow me to ensure you that I'm not a drug user and I'm very psychologically sound, much like others in this thread opposing your view.

I approached this debate with an open mind, ready to be led to an opinion by facts and science. Unfortunately your molestation and eventual ignorance of such has made your argument vastly invalid.


Roman 6 years ago

Took me forever to go through all of the reasearch but...Hal your argument is fatally flawed. It is time to conceed. I am intrested to see your response to PB if there ever is one.


This is absolutely ridiculous. 6 years ago

Hal, you're a monster.


Eugene 6 years ago

Game over. And the winner is...PB_Smith!


Islandre 6 years ago

Thank you Hal, I'm glad someone out there is willing to speak for the sacred in all of us. I feel sorry for the people who lack the conviction to know right from wrong and have to fall back on statistical tricks and "empirical evidence". Pfft. Only the weak of faith need experimentation to know the truth of their hypotheses.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 6 years ago from Southern California

Well, To all those commenting, thank you.

Let me assure all of you I AM NOT A TROLL ALTER-EGO OF HAL LICINO.

I'm just an average person who noticed his hubs about drugs and birth defects. When I read them I was dumbfounded at the misinformation and erroneous associations; glue sniffing and pot smoking on the same page?

I posted comments and provided links, all of which Mr. Licino removed after about a day. I posted in some of his other hubs to find out why. I then asked him via e-mail to provide some of the "hundreds of peer reviewed papers" he mentioned and this is how this hub/debate came into being.

Any one of you could have done the same, all the research is out there only a search engine away. Problem is most don't want to take the time to sort out the truth from the myth and lies.

Lies are what get kids killed when it comes to drugs, bottom line.

That is my motivation.

No ego aggrandizement, no bloated sense of achievement. Just the reality that kids and adults do and will do drugs.

When I was a teen I was told PCP was just like pot. I almost died as a result. That is why I "evangelize" for truth and honesty regarding drugs. My wife lost two brothers to drunk drivers 2 years apart. That is why I fight for truth about substance abuse. My mother-in-law died of lung cancer because when she was young smoking was the sophisticated thing to do. That is why it's important to research the facts. A close friend ended up in a psyche ward due to methamphetamine. That is why I took up this debate. I have seen first hand what misinformation and lies about substance use and abuse has done to people close to me. I have also seen what marijuana has done for a friend as he was going through chemo prior to his passing. He could actually eat a meal and keep it down, something most take for granted.

I'm not in this to promote drugs and their use.

I'm not in this to bring Hal Licino down.

I'm in this because the lies and half-truths regarding drugs have done more damage to lives and societies then the drugs themselves ever have.

I will start to compose my own hub on this topic and related as some of you requested.

Hal, I haven't resorted to "blasting" you, nor will I, therefore I still hold you to our agreement of posting my comments without censor and in a timely fashion. I determined at the start to maintain the integrity of the issue by not debasing myself by engaging in these antics and I remain focused on the issue at hand,

namely is LSD harmful and teratogenic in dosages used recreationaly and therapeutically?

Please regroup and refocus on that issue.


Wolter 6 years ago

Give it up, PB. Hal is a troll.

From this point forward, he'll avoid disclosing his nonexistent data and will tell everyone he's doing it to keep people on edge. Or because he doesn't like being rushed. Or whatever reason in order to keep the comments coming so that he can throw insults around and generally piss people off.

But you already knew he was full of shit anyway.


xunlei profile image

xunlei 6 years ago

yeah,good

it is great !

I will keep you posted!


Confused 6 years ago

Hmm... This whole exchange (which I admit, I've only skimmed over) is kind of befuddling.

It became clear pretty early on that Hal is joking about this whole thing. I mean, it's pretty unfathomable to me that someone would put THIS much effort into an elaborate hoax (though I guess it's been done before). The thing is though, this kind of thing has to be subtle, like it was at the beginning. Hal, you have to stop being so overt. There has to be some question in the reader's mind ("wait, could at actually be true that someone could believe this?"). So please, I urge a return to intelligent satire.

Thank you.


Scott Johnson 6 years ago

Hal, I think the reason you're getting so many comments from proxy IPs is because you're getting traffic from reddit.com. This Hub was posted there, and it shot to the front page.

http://hubpages.com/health/Medical-Studies-Prove-T...

I really don't think that threatening to withhold information will be an effective tactic. Most of us trust PB's information. Since you haven't offered anything in three weeks other than to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a stoned loser, most of us only assume you don't have anything.

I would like to see the information that refutes PB's position. I like to have an informed viewpoint, and it appears as though the best information at the moment comes from PB.

If you have "massive clinical information," won't it feel really good to beat all these people who are mocking you?

Here's the link from reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/adq44/dud...


turvyc 6 years ago

God I love the Internet!

I just have to get a comment in here so I can be part (albeit a tiny, insignificant one) of this awesomeness. Either this is the biggest pwnage ever, or the best trolling ever. In either case, I love it.

@Hal, where the heck is your rebuttal?? We're all on tenterhooks here!

@Hal 3000: Be careful buddy ... an invocation of Godwin's Law could ruin this whole party.

@PB: You, sir, are totally cool.


Mattemer 6 years ago

Hal, I've never taken drugs my entire life, and never tried a cigarette, in fact I am quite anti-drug. I'm stating this up front so I don't get labeled as a drug addled hippie. I thought it best that you hear from a completely "normal" person that you are acting with the maturity level of a 12 year old. And for you to sit there and say "I'll share my info when I want to" and "maybe I won't share it at all" just shows how immature and dimwitted you truly are. If you have such wonderful information at your disposal, I would think you would 1) want to help out the "hippie drug addled freaks" following this by showing them how bad LSD is - you could maybe save lives here, bit of a stretch, but you never know 2) also want to prove everyone wrong. You are continually called out and put down, but apparently have indisputable information to back up your claims, but won't release it? Hmmm.. I really do wish you had this info, but I'm willing to bet a lot of money that no one will ever see your "information."


C-Mac-D 6 years ago

As opposed to "Medical Studies Prove The Extensive Damage LSD Does To The Body & Mind", this blog should be titled "Hal Luciano's summarizing paragraphs at the bottom of excerpts of medical studies attempt to prove the extensive damage LSD does to the body and mind." All anybody has to do is read the actual studies themselves to see that Hal [ph]ails at comprehending them, and then passes on his ignorance in bold.


eloc 6 years ago

wow, Hal. you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

PB, that is quite the body of research you've presented. on behalf of all of us who appreciate knowledge, thank you.


snake oil salesman 6 years ago

Um, your last comment alone, where you conveniently say you'll make us wait an inordinate amount of time for a true response to PB, leads me to believe that you are in fact the one squirming. Take your time, I hope it's really worth the wait [but it probably won't be, judging from every other single thing you've written]. Good luck, it looks like you need it.


Nick Heer 6 years ago

Hey there Hal

Just wanted to touch on your comment that "[d]rug users are despicable, miserable, wretched excuses for human beings." As a fellow Canadian, I should point you in the direction of a statistic that shows that 44% of Canadians have used marijuana at least once in their lifetime: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/adp-apd/cas_gend...

Yes, almost half of Canadians aged 15 and up are despicable excuses for human beings.

If I were to claim that the 43% of Canadians who are Roman Catholic are misguided slaves to an imaginary being, how logical do you think I'd sound?

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/...

For what it's worth, PB has refuted you in a logical, sane and mature manner, citing evidence and not taking anything out of context (in many cases, he's actually providing a useful context). You, on the other hand, seem to be doing the opposite. You seem to have had an appointment with a doctor (with no provided credentials) for nearly a month now. I understand that it's flu season, but doubtless he had an hour to speak to you in that time?


Frank 6 years ago

I was going to follow this debate and see what Hal could possibly conjure up, but after browsing thru his comments I realise it's not worth my time, especially considering his latest comment.

Delaying your response and layering on more insults is only adding to your poor credibility. Wait as long as you like, but at some time or another you will have to reply, and you will have to face the fact that you manipulated data to prove your theory.


Mr. SMythe 6 years ago

Hal prays. Hal is a believer. Believers have faith. Faith does not require facts. Facts are those annoying things that get it in the way of opinions. If one ever needs proof for the absence of intelligent design, you only have to look at it's proponents, as only evolution and randomness can produce such profound errors...

I have just archived this hub. The second comments disappear I'll upload it under hallicinolikesdrugs.com (just got it for $1.99 at GoDaDDy). I must say, Google is a treasure trove of info on Hal. Oh hold on, I think we've been had, most of Hal's other posts are on how to increase page views, advertising revenue, etc.

Wow... pretty smart Hal.


The Taylor 6 years ago

Thanks.

Us stoners will be having a far greater time than you, Hal.

I'm sorry that PB spent so much time typing what he did, just to have this happen.

OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS


Delaware 6 years ago

Hal - This is a troll, right? Come on. "I'll consider holding the disclosure..."

I don't think a come back is possible. This kind of we're seeing here.. This is your 5 seconds of fame going away very quickly.

This is going to have a huge impact on your personal life.

I wouldn't be surprised if you sunk into a depressed state and withdrew from the internet for a while.

Well, good luck on recovering. You seem like a good guy who's being controlled by a bad and dumb robot.


Neil 6 years ago

No proxy here.

After reading all that I only have one wish; and that is for you (Hal) to read this conversation as a completely different person; hopefully this will allow you to do two things.

1) See how much a fool you've made of yourself and the amount of times you've contradicted yourself.

2) Be able to laugh at your inability to address the issue at hand and your ability to be so blind and ignore all other evidence, even if it supports your case. I am willing to bet my entire lives earnings that you did not read all of PB's posts. How unscientific of you; acting just like the religious person that you probably are.

PB is doing something productive with his time; he is trying to educate you; but you just don't care to listen.

Do the right thing.


anonymouse 6 years ago

Bwahahaha. Good job PB. Game over, Checkmate. Hal has lost. Thank you PB.


Jona Stout 6 years ago

Yeah Hal... You kind of killed yourself on this one...


Kado 6 years ago

Hal, how can you not see what you're doing to your own image here? I have never done drugs in my life (including alcohol) and probably never will, simply because I value a clear mind and sound judgment above all else. With that in mind, I can honestly say that everything that PB has presented soundly defeats your argument and exposes you as a fraud and it is painfully obvious that you have nothing to counter with so you have resorted to name-calling (contrary to what you said you WOULDN'T DO at the beginning of this whole mess) rather than presenting your supposed evidence; Evidence that you do not seem to have have or, more than likely, does not even exist. Sir, you lose. You are acting like a pathetic wreck. Grow up.


usuck 6 years ago

Hal, do you have ANY idea how ridiculous you sound right now? With each response, you fail more and more.


andy 6 years ago

Hi, I just stumbled on this page and although I don't know much about LSD or drugs in general, Hal doesn't seem to be very constructive in his arguments.


Matt 6 years ago

Hal is by far one of the most childish people I have ever seen. Before you try to tell me I am a drug addict for disagreeing with you, I will let you know that the only drug I use is caffeine. (No drinking or smoking, in addition to none of the illegal stuff, ever. Not for any real reason besides a complete lack of desire to use any of them)

You continue to stall to prepare some amazing defeat to PB, but you just call people names despite for the most part, everyone acting respectful and polite. I just would like to know if you realize how much of a hypocrite you are. Please only post fact-checked information and polite replies to peoples comments. Resorting to the arguing tactics of the common 6 year-old does not accomplish anything besides lowering reader's respect for you and lowering their value of your thoughts. Please act more adult if you want to be taken seriously


HammerJack 6 years ago

Bookmarked. Honestly Hal, I have never done any illegal drugs in my life and while I don't fully support your stance on them I do look forward to seeing your counter argument against PB. I hold judgement of others. This is my real IP and I am a real person. Please post your demolishing data and destroy PB or stop.


Non-Believer 6 years ago

Hal, are you doing this on purpose? Is this all a massive troll?

The way you are responding to valid points backed up with scientific research is juvenile.

Just the logic 'only illegal drugs are bad' is preposterous, legal drugs such as alcohol/tobacco and certain strong prescription medications have (and always will be) worse than a great number of drugs that have been made illegal.

Please let this horrible joke end Hal, for your own sake.


ronburg 6 years ago

Hal, your complete lack of integrity on this topic amazes me. You start by claiming you will professionally respond to PBs comments and then turn around and tell him to talk to the hand is beyond hilarious. Every post Ive read of yours here tonight has made me think less of your character and your ability to have a mature argument when the facts are against you. Im a completely successful network security specialist who has done LSD 20+ times in my life, each time unforgettable. Please open your eyes, and try not to be so close minded.


Hals Mom 6 years ago

Hal:

Reddit has called your bluff, and it's time to own up.... be a man for once in your life and post your "evidence"

Or just shut up and go away.


Somedude 6 years ago

Hal, stop e-fighting with everyone an just post your evidence when your ready! Name-calling isn't worth it. So everyone just give him a chance to state his lies. :)


Beryl 6 years ago

You'd think that, given his zeal towards the topic, Hal would spend his time organizing his data and preparing it for presentation rather than maliciously insulting people.

Talk about unproductive.


Monolithic 6 years ago

Wow, you even manage to fail at attempting to sound like you enjoy making us wait opposed to just putting it off in hopes that people forget.

You don't see what really has happened though. It no longer matters if you even post up your information. Most of the people who have read this won't come back (unless it's posted on Reddit again if you actually do manage a retort to PB). You have been defeated quite clearly because PB used your own sources (along with his own) and corrected claims you made based on these sources. You clearly misinterpreted the sources you read because even someone such as I, who is just an average curious Joe, managed understand the sources without the need for any scientific background.

Post your retort or not. It really matters very little except you seal your fate as yet another ignorant fellow on this Earth.


jwalhol 6 years ago

You both have obviously wasted a very large amount of time on an argument that does nothing to benefit anyone but your own egos. Put this kind of time and effort into something worthwhile. Then when you see the results, encourage others to do the same. Don't waste your lives researching arguments about recreational activities that have no influence, good or bad, on society.


I'm just sayin' 6 years ago

Hal, my pal, you just got pwned! Please rise to the challenge and acknowledge that someone was just that much better.


New 6 years ago

I'm new to this corner of the internet (found this on reddit), but wonder:

If you really wanted to have a thorough debate of an issue, and it appears most people here are searching for one, why have it on a forum moderated by a guy like this one?


some medical student 6 years ago

SirDent + Hal:

Please learn how to properly engage in scientific debate before trying to pose as informed individuals on the subject matter.

Congrats on making it onto reddit.

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/adq44

/dude_writes_article_medical_studies_prove_the/


Andrew 6 years ago

Hal, your logic is flawless.


Drug User 6 years ago

This seemed to have promise. Hal, I am truly disappointed in your lack of discipline.


Agent00Funk 6 years ago

First. My IP will be from a proxy since the only way to access your hub from the other side of the Great Firewall of China is to use a proxy, but I assure you, I am real and this is my first post.

Second. Hal, I too was hoping to see a real discussion with facts coming from your camp. However, since the time of posting I have seen no such facts. In your last post you say you will wait days, weeks, months before posting your facts. I fear that you are simply stalling until there is nobody with any interest left to read your posts.

I ask you, how do you expect to win this debate if you don't even participate in it? You have so many visitors at your hub, most of whom have attacked your position, yet you do nothing. This is your chance Hal, if you truly have this treasure trove of refuting evidence please enlighten us. Otherwise I fear you are trying to sell us tickets to El Dorado.

I have never seen a proper debate where the withholding of evidence led to a victory, and if you withhold your evidence you are digging yourself into a deeper hole and destroying any credibility you may have held.

Hal, I mean you no animosity, but there is an angry mob at your door, if you have the means to refute them, now is the time. Stalling will not placate them, nor will personal attacks.

I have bookmarked this page in hopes that you and PB_Smith may resume your debate, and I certainly hope that PB still has the patience to deal with your stalling tactics.

Hal, if you were a lawyer and the judge asked you "where is your evidence?" would you say "oh yes your honor, I will have it for you next week or next month, until that time the defendant can suck it."...i hope not, and as this started as a rational debate I am sad to see your tactics of rhetoric have devolved.

Redeem yourself and give us your well-reasoned argument.


Robert 6 years ago

Umm, you don't have any data, we can all tell by now. There's two dogs in this fight but only one has provided substantial research, or any corroborating research at all really.


Ming Ping 6 years ago

Thanks for digging your hole a little deeper Hal. Good luck climbing out of it.


Matt 6 years ago

I get the feeling that Hal doesn't really have any more data to release, and he's just hoping everyone will forget about this and drift away so he loses a minimal amount of face.

OR he's trying to find new data that he hopes can prove his claims. Maybe he really is just busy with the holidays, and this isn't some sort of charade he's putting on about his meeting with one of the world's most foremost researchers (is it set yet by the way?).

But if you already have the data to completely prove your hypothesis, why don't you post it already? You can always come back and edit in addendum with what you learned from this big name scientist.


HIEFO 6 years ago

Wow. Hal loses.


Oscar.UK 6 years ago

"The more you insult me for not replying quickly enough to YOUR schedule, the more I consider holding the disclosure of all the massive clinical data which demolishes everything you stand for"

Wait, let me get this right... you have all the data you need to completely demolish your opponents point of view in this debate and have decided that instead of doing that your going to just hang around and trade childish insults with them?

What happened to your earlier position of

"I'm playing this one STRAIGHT and not engaging in my usual banter. This is a serious issue, PB is serious about his side of the story, and I will give him more than enough opportunity to outline his case. Then, I will respond in detail!"

Now I understand that allot of information has been put forward and I even accept that it may be possible that you are reading all the data, consulting experts in the field and compiling extensive research to create a knock out blow style response. So I'm not going to pressure you for some sort of time frame for your response... Though I would ask that you refrain from your frankly stupid stereotyping of all drug users and your continuous stream of insulting comments. I patiently await your long and detailed response full of links to peer reviewed studies and articles that no doubt support your position and were published in notable and respected scientific journals.

After all that's what PB_Smith deserves didn't you say yourself

that you were a fan of PB_Smith, and I'm sure that you would not want to disappoint him/her.

nicomp says:

Someone should join PB's fan club.

Hal Licino says:

I'll join! :)

To the other people who keep harassing Hal for a response... just wait I'm sure its coming. Because if it were not and he just goes silent on the issue or tries to distract people with insults and name calling then it would prove all your assumptions about Hal. That Hal was either too unintelligent to understand the data he used to make his argument. Or he deliberately misunderstood and misrepresented the data to satisfy and promote his own personal bias.

So can we get back to the debate people? Because this is actually a very interesting issue.


Bob 6 years ago

"Now we can start a CIVILIZED debate on the ISSUES. We'll talk FACTS. I won't attack anyone personally and no one will attack me personally, or I will simply not publish the comment. The rules are clear. Let's go."

...

"pathetic druggie freaks"

"a bunch of nuts"

"moronic druggies"

"People who take psychedelic drugs are profoundly sick individuals"

"their facts are just delusions fueled by their chemical addled brains. They are to be profoundly pitied."

"Drug users are despicable, miserable, wretched excuses for human beings."

"the vast majority of these bozos are too drug-addled to actually click on ads!"

"ignorant, pathetic and easily played druggie dummies"


HalOVER9000 6 years ago

Hal you're proof NOT taking LSD is detrimental to one's mental health. I for one will not be awaiting your rebuttle.


Pajamapalooza 6 years ago

Wow!... That was a lengthy read. I must have missed the part where you handed that PB Smith character his own behind. His insessant rambling about "sources" was booooring.

I really love your other hubs on ugly motorcycles and pajamas. Thank you for all of the indepth research on all that you do.

Ride on my friend... Ride on!


Andrew Spellman 6 years ago

Hal.

Your arguments make you seem incredibly childish, you're nothing more than a confused man with a moral agenda that he's trying to push.

Rather than explain just how amazingly wrong you are, both in argument technique and data, I'd like to just point a couple things out to you.

You're like a man so convinced of his beliefs that he'd rally a witch hunt in Salem. The sad thing is, people eat this stuff up, and will rarely do as PB_Smith and actually look into the claims made.

It honestly saddens me just how far back you are taking the scientific debate, and it further saddens me just how many people will actually BELIEVE your bias, as opposed to the multitude of findings that say otherwise.

Hal, I know you likely don't believe what I'm about to say, so blinded by your delusions as you are, but your arguments completely and utterly go against every foundation of debate known to man. I would quite literally think you had made this post JUST to get this sort of reaction; your words are almost hand crafted just to perturb anyone willing to actually read this debauchery.

Hal, I would love a response and I hope, I really do, that you'll approve this comment. Please realize just how much attention this debate is getting, and just how important it as that you manage it maturely.

Yours,

-Andrew

P.S. Never done LSD. Please don't insult me as you have everyone else.


Leo T 6 years ago

Hal, I think it has become clear to everyone on this thread that you do not actually intend to follow up with a non-biased well-researched rebuttal to PB Smith's debunking of your original claims, and in fact you are incapable of doing so due to your fundamental lack of understanding of the matter and gross prejudice despite any facts or arguments presented you. Regardless of whether or not your initial post and the following ad hominem attacks were meant to troll the readers, I want to thank you for starting this debate as it unintentionally helped to dispel some myths and misconceptions about physiological effects of LSD. I understand that you feel strongly against drug use, and I am sure you feel that way for the right reasons, but realize that misleading your readers and continuously dismissing reasonable arguments damages not only your reputation, but also your position, making your readers more skeptical, rather than concerned, about the dangers of LSD.

PB, thank you for all the research and time you have put into your posts, as well as setting a great standard of intellectual integrity and rigor on debating such a controversial and emotional topic. There is no better way to identify and expose faux-scientific fraud driven by personal agenda and close-minded prejudice. The only way to minimize the harm of drugs to society is through honest education, research and public discussion, not stubborn fear-mongering.


kicktown 6 years ago

Hal, do you really find joy in manipulating yourself as you do?

Your word games and constant dodging remind me of my alcoholic mother.

I pray that your sick heart finds some love and logic.


RedditSaysHi 6 years ago

I didn't know you could get a troll mosh from reddit before. But then Hal, "Drug users are despicable, miserable, wretched excuses for human beings." Trolling couldn't be more obvious.

Be vigilant. Watch out for the evil phenylephrine.


Redditlurker 6 years ago

Hal,

You really should thank PB_Smith. He's making your failure famous.


Eric 6 years ago

I did insane amounts of LSD during the 1990's. Now I'm a brain surgeon. True story. Your ramblings are just that, ramblings. There is no evidence to support your claims whatsoever.


Pleurat 6 years ago

"Lives for cats, pasta and motorcycles."

FTW Hal, FTW!


Kymani 6 years ago

Okay hal, i was just fooling with you in my last coment. But hey this debate its turning a bit violent, i can smell the blood in the air. Everyone must just chill, and wait for hal's answear. And hal, all i can see in your answears for people who oppose to you is "yeah whatever your are a drugadict, your brain is fried". I dont think taking drugs makes your thoughts less valid. You know, even there are people who really mess up their lifes with drugs, there's also some succesful people that take drugs, you shouldnt see just what you want.

I can really picture you hal, everyone told you drugs werent good for you since you were a little child, so why would someone lie to you? someone you trusted? because they have been lied too. You know, drugs can be bad, if you are an idiot who haves absolut no selfcontrol and if you are an idiot without drugs you are and idiot with them too, but people relate that stupidity with drugs. And thats why drugs are illegal cause they know they can do whatever they want with a stupid person's brain, "yeah tell him drugs are bad, but give him some alocohol that will make him even more stupid", all in all they are just trying to protect them. But that isnt the way, if just everyone was corectly educated and informed about drugs they wouldnt be such a problem.

So ill ask everyone if the can be a little bit more respectful, and not to use violence (verbal violence) to prove your right. PB has shown himself really mature so far, and he made a really good work, we need more people like him in the world (dont let your ego go to high xP), lets wait for hal's answear without throwing shit to eachothers.


Vincent Garcia 6 years ago

Hal,

I have never done drugs (unless you count caffeine). I am a psychologist that specializes in addiction. I see people with real, serious addictions every day. Nothing you have said even remotely helps the situation. You merely call people "morons" and "losers", instead of explaining to them a better way to conduct their lives.

You are the moron. You are the loser.

Why do you continually berate people who you think need help? You are a sick person. Quit trying to put down everyone who doesn't agree with you. Instead, why don't you post this elusive "research" you have hidden in your back pocket? You don't post anything that responds to anyone's criticisms because you do not have anything.

Admit it.

If you do have some research that responds to these criticisms, post it. Otherwise, quit calling people names like a child.


Shawn S 6 years ago

Hal, why don't you stop wasting everyone's time and post a legitimate rebuttal.


Graham 6 years ago

Hal, I wouldn't say you are stupid, but you sure are childish and biased enough to screw with the stats. Not being stupid, I also assume that you are smart enough to 'juke' the stats while not appearing that you did to anybody in your field who is neutral to your arguments.

I cannot say what LSD is like, I've never taken it and this isn't my area of academic study, but from your childish approach to a genuine academic debate has left me with no choice, but to take your paper with a pinch of salt.

I was at a ICT conference and one of my lecturers stopped a person mid way into her presentation on her paper, he got up , spent 45 minutes writing a proof and proved her wrong. Everybody got up clapped and the person giving the presentation albeit embarrassed accepted her defeat gracefully.

She didn't call him a NEAT, NERD, an induction freak, say that he was wrong cos hes a dork or tell him to go and watch porn on the internet. She said, "On seeing this evidence I have no alternative, but to admit my paper was wrong, thank you for pointing it out" and then everybody else clapped for her.

How many people are clapping for you mate? zilch.

You'd be better of saying "Your arguments are convincing, but I am not convinced", rather then calling everybody a druggie.

I know this is off point, but I didn't like your prohibition argument, because it is wrong. Alcohol is legal, now so people aren't drinking themselves blind with a single cup or being shot by bootleggers. Its the other way around, Prohibition kills, because the demand for alcohol is too high for it to be illegal.


Tanner 6 years ago

Hal,

You are the master troll. Keep it up.


i3inary 6 years ago

you gotta pay the troll toll if you want inside this boy's soul.

I can't believe so many smart netties fell in this troll hole.


Mordum 6 years ago

How easy it is to twist a complete failure of an argument into slander to the masses. Easy to do, easier to see through.

You should swallow your right wing morals and accept that you were defeated by a very thorough individual.

Pb_Smith, excellent work!


Le Sigh 6 years ago

What a waste. What a terrible waste. So much effort put forth by PB to have an honest discussion, and it's wasted on this boob.

Does Hal just want some anonymous internet attention? Is there money attached to traffic to this hubpage site? Was it some dude who made ridiculous assertions, then realized he was in over his head and retreated to deep-seated defense mechanisms when his pseudo-intellectual buffoonery failed.

We may never know.

Thank you to PB for his efforts.

You're probably tired of hearing this throughout your life, Hal... but you weren't worth it.


JPco 6 years ago

LOLOL I TROLLED U, way to weasel yourself out of admitting that you were completely and utterly wrong. Just tip your hat to PB.


Shii 6 years ago

Don't waste your time with Hal. He's clearly trolling.


gc 6 years ago

Hal, this has gone on a month now and you've yet to engage, let alone refute a single one of PB's arguments. You have, however, taken up several opportunities to engage in name-calling whilst dodging every bit of evidence like a scared child caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

It's almost as if you never expected anyone to respond to the article in the first place, and I'm fairly certain that you already deeply regret your initial statements about a civilized, fact-based discussion. You were never interested in a discussion to begin with; your MO from the start was to impose your poorly-researched OPINION upon those who only read and do not question.

You've stated you've got some massive cache of scientific evidence to refute his claims. As I see it, you have only two options at this point:

1) Immediately cease responding to anything but the research already presented, and begin to address each one in its entirety as you already promised you would.

2) Continue to present yourself as a defeated asshole by doing as you have been for weeks.

There is no reason to directly respond to this post other than in your actions. That is, either doing as you suggested from the start what you would, or not. Completely ignore the mob until your alleged refutes have been presented, or do not.


Dan 6 years ago

Hal,

Are you going to post that rebuttal or not? Because from where I'm standing, it looks like you've got nothing.


Frank 6 years ago

I just wasted a good hour scrolling down this article waiting for Hal's counter, I think that the "disclosure of all the massive clinical data which demolishes everything you stand for" is realistically never going to happen. But what do I know...I'm only here because of reddit


outside observer 6 years ago

I think it's pretty obvious by Hal's last reply that this is going no where. The evidence he claims does not exist and he's slowly finding that out.

It's unfortunate that some people can not be relied upon to participate in a civil exchange.


S. Koeller 6 years ago

Mr. Licino you have proven yourself an incredibly immature, dogmatic and unintelligent individual. While reading through this thread I came to assume that you were perhaps a teenager (as I have not visited this site before), and thus given to hypocritical personal attacks and pathetic insults in the face of criticism, but having read your bio I'm astounded to see that you claim decades of experience as a professional. I can only assume that you have already received a barrage of well deserved criticism beyond what is in this thread, as such all I have to say is that you are a disgrace.

You were challenged to intelligent and sensible debate and you were taken to pieces. It is quite apparent that you will not be producing any such supporting 'data', rather you perhaps hope that this will blow over so that you can delete this thread.

Nonetheless I too have bookmarked this in order that I might witness your further destruction.

I too found myself wondering if you are perhaps a conservative christian with no real interest in scientific procedure or fact. Far from being an attack on christians in general I would point out that this would make you a disgrace to religion as well.

Happy Holidays


Disbeliever 6 years ago

After reading all the comments on this page, I have come to the conclusion that Hal is simply having a bit of fun, stringing along gullible yet ultimately correct bloggers. This man cannot possibly take himself or his arguments seriously, it is like a 12 year old bully debating with wizened old scientists. Therefore I commend his well constructed trap, for this can't be anything but a game.


Lazlo Toth 6 years ago

PB completely humiliated you. And now this post is being circulated as a prime example of how to embarrass someone in a debate even if he won't admit defeat. And you deserve it. Welcome to the Internet, sport!


Hal_should_suicide 6 years ago

Comment censoring power trip much Hal?


joey. 6 years ago

If you do hold back this data of yours, people will stop coming back to this page. You'll lose your debate, your hits, and (what's left of) your credibility.

You're not winding anyone up, you're making yourself look a fool.


shame on hal 6 years ago

So what he's saying is, he's got nothing?


DS 6 years ago

I came here looking for an intelligent discussion. It started that way. The mod/original author degenerated into attacks and brittleness when his intellectual position was weakened. Sad.


Herp Derp 6 years ago

It is fairly obvious at this point that Hal has no intention of actually addressing any of the research presented by PB_Smith, and furthermore I am under the impression that he is a master of the trolling arts.

Hal, if you are not a troll I believe you would make a great politician; I have never seen someone use circular logic and misunderstanding of research findings so unrelentingly, and that comes in handy in the political world.

For instance look at the USA's former president G.W. Bush, there was clearly no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeuda but obviously the US needed to invade Iraq due to the lack of connection.

Troll score (unweighted scale): 9.5/10


Henry 6 years ago

Sober person here, patiently waiting for the disclosure of all your massive clinical data.


laughing at you 6 years ago

Look sport, be an adult and admit you were wrong. This page has been linked on multiple news aggregators. A very large part of the internet is, right now, laughing hysterically at you. PB systematically destroyed every one of your claims and did so without every calling you names. Time to pack it in. If you think you can just wait out the storm by stalling, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what just happened. You have already lost. Maybe you should take a step back and read it all again. You don't have a leg to stand on and your ongoing denial is really pretty embarrassing.


LIes 6 years ago

wow hal, i really like the way you keep saying you won't make this personal while making it constantly personal against all of the posters. How big of you.

Promising data that never comes is also realllllly laughable.

It's like if I argued with you by saying,

"I know a guy, I promise, a really important guy who knows all about LSD and he already will prove how everything you post(if you ever do) is wrong. But I won't be talking to him until 2011. When I do you will be toast and people WILL give LSD to their kids. You can trust me because I typed it."


Anonymous 6 years ago

OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS


tugg 6 years ago

I'm an occasional LSD user - a few times a year.

Prior to trying LSD - I did quite a bit of research on it. It first got my curiosity when I was in grade 8 - but it was not until my 3rd year of University where I finally took the plunge.

It's funny, prior to this trip - it felt as if I was out of control with my life, not sure where I was going. I was almost flunking out of University.

In the summer before my 3rd year starting - I tripped a few times, and had one especially profound trip. It felt as if the chaos on my life had been organized, I knew where I wanted to go, what I needed to do to get there and started to get my act back in line.

I went from nearly being kicked out for flunking - to pulling my cumulative GPA up to 3.8.

During the school year, my use of the drug was not that frequent - I'd generally save it for a "special" time of year - just after I had finished my final exam for the semester.

It provided me with a chance for release and reflection. It gave me a view of what got me to this point, and where I was going. I'd find the motivation, strenght and determination to get me through the next semester.

I was not a junkie doing LSD every week, I was not an addict seeking the next high. Once, every 3-4 months - I would embark upon a trip, and come out feeling refreshed and rejuvinated on the other side.

Now, I've graduated University, in a long-term relationship, I'm exelling at my current career, and I'm close with my friends and family. Once every few months, I may decide to take LSD - or not. It depends on where my head is at. It's something that I fit into my life - not fit my life around. Drug addicts do drugs and fit their life (if any) around it, with their goal being to chase the next high.

Is LSD 100% safe in every possible way? no - nothing is. It's a calculated risk, but I feel for your average, healthy individual that is in good physical and mental health, done in the right set and setting - the risks are miniscule at best, with many benefits to be had.

With responsible and reasonable use, I do feel that one can use LSD with no risks. Yes, if you are doing high doses, frequently and abusing the drug - you are putting yourself at risk, but more mental than physical risk.

There is also the issue of illict LSD, or substances sold as LSD which are not LSD - which carries a great risk in itself. DOC, DOI, DOB, BrDfly, and other "research chemicals" can be dangerous and do not have the same amount of research done on them as LSD.


Hal is Pathetic 6 years ago

Hal, after reading this I believe it is you who is abusing drugs. You show the same arguments you make of others and display them yourself. You really are a pathetic moron. You are our entertainment not the other way around. PB destroyed your false arguments and you are simply too simple minded to post this "research" you say you have. You are amusement to us Hal. We are all laughing at your ineptitude.


Jeff 6 years ago

The hilarity of this article is that the original discovery of DNA was assisted by the use of LSD.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive...


ajx 6 years ago

None of these studies cite DOSAGES. The 'damage' these studied are finding are probably dealing with dosages astronomically higher than those used for recreational use (100-500 MICROgrams).


Jesus 6 years ago

Wow, poor hal. So delusional that he actually thinks he is going to win this debate. I've eaten LSD over 300 times, the only bad effects Ive had are tracers. If hal was to actually eat LSD he would realize what a tool he is. So the government lied to you and you ate it up, poor poor hal. Go to rehab? You know nothing about LSD do you??? Its the most non-addictive substance...ugh you must be a conservative, because you can't listen to reason. Go on living your life of delusion man, trying to talk about things you have no clue about.


Redditor 6 years ago

Hal, I look forward to your non-existent reply.


Sir Lollington 6 years ago

Hal:

Your original post was written from authority, as if the science agreed with you. Now that you clearly realize you are at odds with the science, you've become evangelically anti-reason. I was waiting for a reasoned response and debate, but you've quite clearly let your emotions get the best of you.

Say what you'd like about drug users, but don't try to use science to support your biases when it clearly does not. Consider posting a new article where you denounce the LSD-user's evil ways without trying to skew scientific literature to support your view.

PB:

Your dedication to and sincerity for the search for truth impress me greatly.


Grim Jestor 6 years ago

Acid is tasty and fun. I wish more people would make it, so it would not be so difficult to find.

Oh, and nice debate. Very clever, all sides.


Shaun 6 years ago

You have a lot of growing up to do, Hal.


arch 6 years ago

seriously hal...you need to turn off the computer and go do somthing productive with other people... you seem like the kind of person who really needs freinds. there is more to life than the internet, your wasting away.


Guest 6 years ago

And now we see Hal's masterstroke - "haha", he exclaims as he strings together justifications and a half-baked reason to never respond to PB, "I LOVE TO WATCH YOU SQUIRM".

Hal, go do something productive with your life: continue trying to convert whoever can stand you for more than 5 minutes to your anti-drug cause but please give up here, you are obviously outmatched.

I will stop checking this site now as I doubt you will ever post a rebuttal but I will always chuckle to myself about how a misguided blogger named Hal got his attempt at a scientific argument completely torn apart in this hub.

Good luck in your future endeavors.


Hey Hal 6 years ago

Hey hal, i see you never actually posted any comments as to PBs original postings, moreover it seems like you original posting would hardly stand up to the academic rigor needed in order to take anything you say seriously. Your posting seems to be doing everything wrong that current media does in misconstruing facts and is easily broken in the face of criticism. You probably won't post this, but just thought I'd let you know/


reesta 6 years ago

Just read this on reddit, and wow....what can I say. Hal you lose! PB you win!


James 6 years ago

Oh, so you're just a troll then


Esseffbee 6 years ago

Hal, go back and read through this thread carefully. A few things I want you to notice. You repeatedly reiterate that you will follow your own rules by not engaging in personal attacks- and repeatedly use personal attacks against those who don't agree with you. In fact, the only personal attacks I see on this board are directed by you at others. Maybe that's because you have editorial control and can delete any comments you want.

Even if you made a good rational argument for your position, your reliance on insults would undermine it. But since you stated yourself that you're unwilling to listen to rational argument: "There is NO data to support anything but my hypothesis", there is really no point in trying to convince you of anything.


mf2112 6 years ago

Hal,

Thank you for finally admitting you have nothing. I will be "fuming" during Christmas alright.


Esseffbee 6 years ago

But I do have to thank you, Hal, for starting this discussion- it's been enlightening. And it parallels the "debate" surrounding Evolution. You have one group who started with the data and arrived at a set of conclusions based upon that data, and another group that starts with a hypothesis (which they are, in no uncertain terms, absolutely unwilling to abandon under any circumstances) and then tries to twist the data to fit their hypothesis.

Nobody who is unwilling to question their own assumptions can call themselves a scientist. Nobody. Because the supremacy of facts and logic over beliefs is a keystone of the Scientific method. That's not to say that everyone should be a scientist, but you (Hal) are clearly pretending at least to adhere to scientific principles in your original post, but demonstrate your lack of scientific rigor in your repeated statements suggesting that you believe that any argument against you is automatically wrong simply because you believe that you're right.


Eseffbee 6 years ago

One more comment (really a question) and I'm leaving this board alone.

So, Hal, you have a bunch of evidence that will completely destroy PB's arguement. But this post started out with you siting numerous studies to make the point that LSD is physiologically harmful. PB then meticulously shot down every single argument you made by showing how you misrepresented or misinterpreted data from those studies in your original argument, only conceding that taking LSD during pregnancy increases the risk of miscarriage.

So my question is: Was it part of your strategy to present logically feeble arguments based upon the misleading presentation of scientific data, only so you could entrap an unwitting opponent into refuting them so you could then bust out some "real" data to shoot their argument out of the water?

Maybe you should either address his critiques of your original arguments directly, or STFU and admit to epic defeat.


Thatsfunny 6 years ago

You know, that's kind of funny because we're just reading YOU and your comment section for entertainment anyway so it just works out well for everyone.

Sincerely,

A Stoner that think you're hilarious


in position 6 years ago

Yeah, yeah, how 'bout never!! That's what I'll tell them. Then I will never reply and just keep lying to myself that I one... and watch the rest of the world (who surprisingly disagrees with me) squirm.


Owned 6 years ago

Instead of embarrasing u'r self over n over, admit when u'r wrong. When I first read u'r article it was very borish n hard to follow. U should thank PB for giving u a reason to strive to be a better researcher. Just take a look at u'r original article compared to u'r posts. U strayed away from logic while PB remains constant. PB did his research on his own, while u r lazy and wait for u'r fake "doctor". Be a gentleman n commend PB for fighting a good fight. Otherwise u r the Troll HAL!


Acadian 6 years ago

Hal, we have all the time you want.

If anything, this will make us all a little warmer over the holidays, knowing that after we are all back to work we'll have your (no doubt ridiculous) reply to dissect.

But hey, have a good holiday ruminating on your imminent defeat! I for one really hope you can pull down his argument. It will be one for the ages if you can.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

Hi, guys! Thanks for the page views! Maybe you poor, pathetic miserable wretched stoners (and stoner defenders) may have one effect on me, and that might be to alter my long held contention that you don't make much on AdSense writing online. This might turn out to be a nice tidy Xmas present for me! I might even buy PB a present just to show my appreciation. Like maybe a "clean & sober" T-shirt. So... Thanks again!

Oh... BTW...

The definitive data I have...

will be posted...

when I speak to the researcher...

Not before.

Why?

Because I said so.

:)

So have fun! Keep those page views coming and keep on squirming! The entertainment value alone is priceless!

(Let's see... what shall I buy myself with the proceeds from this Hub... hmmm...)

:)


Andy 6 years ago

I wish to add an additional critique of a specific comment made by Mr. Licino, because it sums up this debate quite well.

1. "kymani: Thank you for your support. If the person was administering LSD intravenously I'm not surprised at all that the psychological effects were devastating."

Mr. Licino's "evidence" in this point is rejected - Kymani's story was anecdotal - not evidence. It's also hearsay. Oh yeah, and it isnt surprising that IV LSD is devastating. If you injected wood splinters into your blood it would be devastating. That's why LSD isnt injected.

2. "To the rest of the mob: I've promised to keep this comments section free of personal attacks, so I won't rip you guys the new rectums you so sorely require."

So much for not making a personal attack.

3. "However, how STUPID do you have to be to think that I don't ALREADY have all the info, and thus have MORE than ample data to prove my hypothesis... indeed I did before I wrote this Hub? Of course I will never agree that this poison is not anything but poison... because I already have the data to back me up!"

Science is not just about gathering evidence to support a theory, it is about accepted ALL valid evidence, and accepting NEW evidence. Close-mindedness and prejudice is not scientific.

How much data does one need to back up a point? At what point is there "enough" data? 100000 zeroes is still nothing - having more evidence does not necessarily make your point stronger.

"Already have all the info"... yeah, that you wanted. You picked and chose the data/words that supported your point, without acknowledging the true context (as PB has already highlighted.

A scientist is not merely someone who has a job conducting experimentation in a scientific manner. It is someone who demonstrates open-mindedness with regards to evidence, and supports the BEST theory possible, BASED on an evaluation (i.e. comparison of strengths and weaknesses) of ALL the evidence shown.


Lucy D. 6 years ago

We are the Universe arguing with itself! 8)


Scooty McFly 6 years ago

Well it's a darn good thing I have Adblock then.

Also, go ahead and not post this comment. It doesn't matter to me if other people see it, only that you see it.

Which you will.


TheArtOfWar 6 years ago

I have to give Hal some credit. While he is not the most mature, scientific personality I have ever seen, he is rather clever.

Have any of you ever read the book The Art of War by Sun Tzu? There is a particular passage I feel applies to Hal's tactic, as the book can be applied to literal war just as easily as any other kind of war or conflict, such as debate.

If equally matched, we can offer battle;

if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy;

if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.'

-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

This, I believe is exactly what Hal is doing. There can be no closure to this debate, no success on the part of those who side with PB_Smith, unless Hal engages debate. Hitler was quoted saying,

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it" -Adolf Hitler

Hal has no intent of providing a reasonable counter argument, anyone who can read and understand what has been written here can see that such a thing would be suicide. Hal would utterly be disproved and embarrassed if this were to happen. PB_Smith, I commend you for being the champion of truth when so few are unwilling to take up the torch, and in such a thorough manor, but I fear that what you worked so hard for may be unattainable here.

At least this page can stand as a testimony against those simple lies; they will be repeated in the hope that people will forget and leave this hard earned victory to rot.

I refuse to allow this to happen. Anyone who cares about what has been done here will post the link to this page anywhere they can and tell everyone about this discussion (it's more of a monologue in my opinion) so that it may grow and survive.

Hal controls this site. He does not control screencaps. Take a picture of this thread and post it on your favorite forum.


Oscar.UK 6 years ago

Hal, do you mind telling us who this researcher is, so that we could check their credentials. Obviously you may not want to, or be allowed to hand out their personal details. So maybe could you tell us their credentials? Because I'm sure that you will be talking to one of the best researchers in the field, who has written many peer reviewed articles and studies. Because if that is not the case then I seriously doubt you will get the information you require to "demolish" PB_Smith's intelligent and well reasoned argument.

Also I think were not the ones who appear to be "squirming". Were the ones asking for a intelligent and civilised debate on the subject and your the one frothing at the mouth and resorting to childish name calling. Yet all this time you keep insisting that you already have " definitive data". Now while it is plausible that you actually have compiled serious and worthwhile scientific data to support your position and are even waiting to speak to a expert in the field to confirm a few things and add some more weight to your argument. However while it is plausible it is seeming more and more unlikely.

BTW

"David Nutt" - google him if you don't know who he is...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/29/nut...

Alcohol 5th most dangerous drug

Tobacco 9th most dangerous drug

LSD 14th most dangerous drug


Alexi 6 years ago

i'm 18 years old and i've done lsd about 30 times. i have a 3.4 gpa and am doing a double major in psychology and biology. i found that lsd makes my senses clearer, stimulates my intellect and creativity in a positive way,and made me realize many spiritual insights which are very real and not based on a religion's dogma. i know tons of people who have also done it and none of them have been hospitalized or sent to the mental asylum.

also,the creator of lsd died at 102.


petawb 6 years ago

I suggest you buy yourself a university course on critical thinking and a brain to learn it with - I'm happily contributing to that.


still laughing at you 6 years ago

You really don't get it? Seriously? Dude, it's over. You lost. We're all just coming here to see the wreckage. Stalling just means we leave here sooner still thinking how pathetic you are. If you were a friend, I'd really feel pretty bad for you. Pretty embarrassing.


Hal is Pathetic 6 years ago

"Why?

Because I said so."

Why?

Because you don't have any definitive data. Everyone who has read this post knows this.


SamK 6 years ago

I have to admit I'm really enjoying this entire exchange...two things that I really enjoy...

1) My adult brain loves PB's reasoned and logical approach encompassing the core of the scientific method "observation, not speculation" and the thorough debunking of unsupported BS.

2) Trolling. My hat is off to you Hal, you've not only picked a forum with the right targets, but the right method of stirring the pot. It's a bit juvenile of me to enjoy poking people, but even after you broke down and became obvious you had things stirred up enough that ppl still reacted...Congrats.

That said, I've been emailing PB and he asked me to note that his email came from socal because some think he was Hal (I considered it, the trolling excellence would have been even better if you pretended to be your own opponent Halcion m'boy). In any case, the headers do indicate a socal origin for PB, carry on :).


Andrew 6 years ago

Serious question, Hal: are you a 14 year old girl? Because you are acting like one. Grow up.


Anonymous 6 years ago

Hal, a gentleman knows when to concede he's lost the fight.

You lost the fight.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago

All I can say is: Uh Oh!

And I'll ask a question: Am I trippin' or did someone above sign in as poopoo?


Hal I Tosis 6 years ago

PB_Smith writes on reddit about you:

Yes, I had some doubts as to whether or not he would even post my responses. What I nearly wet myself over was when he admitted that he hadn't even read my responses prior to posting them. I wonder if he regrets that now, Naahh, he's wallowing in the traffic and page views and is far to narcissistic to think otherwise. Thanks


Hal I Tosis 6 years ago

PB_Smith 3 points 1 day ago* [-]

Trust me I had no allusions that this would not become what it has. I know Hal's M.O. and fully anticipated such. But if nothing else it has accomplished 2 things;

1) It has changed the opinion of more than a few regarding LSD and other drugs and hopefully will prompt a more informed decision making process by those individuals. A lot of comments came from people who are opposed to drug usage but are now not so sure about the information they have been told in the past.

2) This has completely discredited Hal Licino as any type of reputable researcher, journalist, and "Hubber". Like I have noted elsewhere, the silence from his usual supporters in this hub is absolutely deafening and very indicative of how thoroughly he has been discredited. All I had/have to do is stick to the facts and not fall for his name calling game which I'm sure he wishes he could draw me into. I doubt he will reconsider before publishing any more of his opinionated garbage, but I doubt the support for it will be as strong. I knew the job was dangerous when I took it.


JESUS GIVEN CONTACT HIGH 6 years ago

don't forget: when you sleep your brain releases the strongest psychedelic tryptamines known to man. Please try not to feel guilty about your nightly out-of-body experiences.

-THE MGMT


Brandon 6 years ago

Just testing before I make a long post that doesn't show up...


Adarsh Sharma 6 years ago

Good news..........


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 6 years ago from Southern California

Note to commenter's, in all fairness Hal did state that he was going to wait until I had completed posting my material and position. I was delayed due to illness and personal commitments and actually posted my summation only 2 weeks ago. Granted this debate has been going on for a few months if you include the 6 weeks it took Hal to produce the Hub initially after stating he would. But he hasn't been avoiding answering for a month, just for about 10 days. With that having been stated, please let's get on with this Mr. Licino.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 6 years ago from Southern California

Hal, since you seem to be having a problem finding any research on LSD I thought I would help you out a little. Here is some of the online resources I consulted to prepare for this debate. I did not include the sources you quoted because, well we already know where they stand. Please do respond in a timely fashion. I am disappointed in the manner in which you have dealt with this as it is completely contrary to all guidelines which you yourself laid out and I agreed that we would BOTH follow. Please let's stop playing games and if you were serious then let's get on with it already. If not then say so and I will move on to publish my own series of Hubs.

Some also provide links and bibliography's to other material, some of which I read as well.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LSD/krippner.h...

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LSD/grof4.htm

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LSD/grofchro.h...

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LSD/barron.htm

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LSD/artist.htm

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LSD/harman.htm

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LSD/leary1.htm

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LSD/leary2.htm

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_writings3....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC198942...

http://www.maps.org/research/cluster/psilo-lsd/

http://www.maps.org/sys/nq.pl?id=1616&fmt=page

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/child.htm

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs...

http://www.rickstrassman.com/

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LSD/krippner.h...

http://www.maps.org/home.html

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/grofchro.htm

http://www.drugtext.org/index.php/en/psychopharmac...

http://www.drugtext.org/index.php/en/neurotransmit...

http://www.hofmann.org/papers/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/oct/23/lsd-...

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/bookmenu.htm

http://current.com/1so124c

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,8...

http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/faq.htm#04a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethyl...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_permanent_damag...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/172...

http://www.doitnow.org/pages/115.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v219/n5158/ab...

http://www.serendipity.li/dmt/chromosomes.htm

http://www.hofmann.org/papers/genetic.htm

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portle...

http://www.ixion.demon.co.uk/lsd.htm

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lsdcrazy.asp

http://www.experts123.com/q/doesn't-lsd-cause-chro...

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/486/does-...

http://www.talktofrank.com/drugs.aspx?id=192

http://www.neurodiversity.com/library_bender_1968a...

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/lsd/f/lsd_faq04.htm

http://www.cosmicbaseball.com/lsd.html

http://www.xs4all.nl/~4david/lsd.html

http://www.lycaeum.org/research/?id=4664

LAWS

http://www.druglibrary.org/default.htm

http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/policy/

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/index.HTM

Annual deaths due to different substances...

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30


gh057 6 years ago

dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge!!!


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 6 years ago from Southern California

Note to commenter's, in all fairness Hal did state that he was going to wait until I had completed posting my material and position. I was delayed due to illness and personal commitments and actually posted my summation only 2 weeks ago. Granted this debate has been going on for a few months if you include the 6 weeks it took Hal to produce the Hub initially after stating he would. But he hasn't been avoiding answering for a month, just for about 10 days. With that having been stated, please let's get on with this Mr. Licino.


PB_Smith profile image

PB_Smith 6 years ago from Southern California

Hal, You claim over 30 years in journalism and you don't even use proper grammar and syntax?

You said;

"Hi, guys! Thanks for the page views! Maybe you poor, pathetic miserable wretched stoners (and stoner defenders) may have one effect on me, and that might be to alter my long held contention that you don't make much on AdSense writing online. This might turn out to be a nice tidy Xmas present for me! I might even buy PB a present just to show my appreciation. Like maybe a "clean & sober" T-shirt. So... Thanks again!"

When the proper way to write it would be;

Hi guys! (no comma needed ) Thanks for the page views! Maybe you poor, miserably pathetic, wretched stoners (and stoner defenders) will have one effect on me, to alter my long held contention that you don't earn much from Adsense by writing online. This may turn out to be a nice tidy Xmas present for me! I may even buy PB a present just to show my appreciation, like possibly a "clean & sober T-shirt. So... Thanks again!

You see when you use proper grammar and syntax your writing conveys your meaning and intent more efficiently. It also contributes to the perception that you actually posses the credentials that you claim.

This is not an assault against your person. Just an observation based on claims you have made about yourself and the fact of your poor writing skills as evidenced in the preceding that calls into question your credentials.

p.s. I wear an XXL (gained a few lbs) and blue is my favorite color.

Can we get back to the topic of this debate now?


Pickerl 6 years ago

Patterscum...Fiddleisk! Yeah right...


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

La laaaaaa laaaaaaaaaa... laaaa laaaaaaaa.... I'm getting ready for Xmas, how about you guys? It's gonna be a merry one with lots of Adsense gifts under the tree... Peace on Earth, Good Will Towards Men, even stoners! Especially the squirmy kind who keep pushing... and the more they push, the more I make them squirm. Patience is a virtue young grasshoppers. Learn it. The data I hold will not only completely obviate PB's (albeit indepth) conclusions, but is so conclusive that you might even be shaken out of your psychedelic haze enough to realize that the poison you've been pouring into your system is just as good for you as an arsenic mojito. Maybe then you can grow up to be valuable members of society rather than a net drain on medical resources required for people who really need them, and an embarrassment to your families and society as a whole. When will you see it? When I speak to the Doctor. And there is absolutely nothing you can do to speed that up by one nanosecond. Drives you crazy, doesn't it? GOOD. Looks good on you. Maybe you should escape with a few sugar cubes, as that's what you guys all do best... confront problems by dropping out, like the pathetic cowards you are. When the going gets tough, the spineless drop acid. Oh... wazzamatta... did I hut u lil feelings lil stoner? Poor bibi... Have a nice Xmas anyway and maybe Santa will put a gift certificate for rehab under the tree! HO HO HO! :)

Oh, and James A. Watkins, there have been so many dang comments, I let that one slip... I've erased it.

On the 12th day of Christmas, my true Hub gave to me,

A stoner on a squirm tree,

On the 11th day of Christmas...

:)

Oh, and that's scrambled just to mess up the stoners even more! :)


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

PBSmith has just posted on my

http://hubpages.com/entertainment/Hal-Mythbusts-Th...

"Hal, once again you've proven yourself to be an unmitigated moron. The rates aren't 1.5 cents per kb but rather 0.015 cents per kb. Your math skills are pathetic, your so-called test lacks any kind of scientific acumen."

Yes, PB knows best. Better than AT&T:

http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/international/ro...

PB. I take back any words of respect I ever paid you. You're just another stoner moron without any brain cells left. You're just as right about AT&T as you are about LSD and I am going to truly relish showing you up for the nincompoop junkie you are. Enjoy the next few days of fun, as after I present my doctor-vetted evidence you'll have to change your screen name... because you'll be hooted out of any forum you frequent.

Including this one. Go write your own Hub. I don't have time to entertain bozos like you. Comments are closed. I'll post a Hub with my evidence when I complete my conversation with the doctor and feel like it. Not before. Not that I even have to now that PB has shown to be such an utter imbecile.

How embarrassing. If I were you I'd emigrate. I hear Mars doesn't have broadband yet. Maybe you can hide there.

Now keep on squirmin'!

Merry Christmas! :)


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

Aw... poor PB went to complain in the forums.... and the thread got locked. The HubPages moderator also told him he'd be banned if he kept it up. :) You're gettin' to be a borderline stalker dude. Look up obsession in the dictionary and then look up your face in the mirror. Your input on my Hubs is OVER. End of conversation. As I said before, you go write your own and then you can put all your erroneous junk in them without trashing my ACCURATE Hubs. You'd figure you would have learned your lesson with the AT&T idiocy you spewed that you couldn't find a clue with both hands and a flashlight... sheesh... some people!


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

OMG, PB! You're a SICK MAN! I am doing you a HUGE favor by deleting your latest comment and you should thank me profoundly. You are STILL INSISTING that you are right about "the rates aren't 1.5 cents per kb but rather 0.015 cents per kb." EVEN IN LIGHT OF THE AT&T SITE LINKED SHOWING CLEARLY that rates vary between $0.005 and $0.0195 PER KILOBYTE. Even when on that page that I've linked to above there is a FULL EXPLANATION OF THE CHARGES:

----

Please Note:

1 MB = 1024KB

$0.0195/KB = about $20/MB

$0.010/KB = about $10/MB

$0.005/KB = about $5/MB

---

What the heck is wrong with you, dude? What is this crazy vendetta you're on that makes you disregard facts that are right in front of you from THE AT&T SITE?

Or maybe that AT&T site is a Hal trick to screw you up? Maybe I went out and bought controlling interest in AT&T stock last week to make you look like an idiot?

You really should seek psychiatric attention, PB. I don't think that in my career I've ever seen anyone who has made such a public fool of themselves in front of thousands of people and STILL insists that BLACK IS WHITE against ALL evidence.

Dang it dude. You couldn't possibly have proven my point about acid eating brains any better if I'd paid you a thousand dollars. Could you have shot yourself in the foot with any BIGGER calibre?

Well... maybe some good will come of it. Maybe somewhere some kid is gonna be about to pop a sugar cube and think... I'd better not... I might end up like PB Smith. :)


Drugs are bad 6 years ago

I'm with you Hal. Nothing these criminals say can sway me from my opinion that all drugs are bad for society. We can only pray that they will eventually sort themselves out and realise the error of their ways.

I also loved the irony of your comment regarding PB shooting himself in the foot.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working