ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

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

Updated on December 4, 2009
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.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Drugs are bad 7 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.

    • Hal Licino profile image
      Author

      Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto

      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. :)

    • Hal Licino profile image
      Author

      Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto

      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
      Author

      Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto

      PBSmith has just posted on my

      https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Hal-Mythbusts-T...

      "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
      Author

      Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto

      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! :)

    • profile image

      Pickerl 7 years ago

      Patterscum...Fiddleisk! Yeah right...

    • PB_Smith profile image

      PB_Smith 7 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?

    • PB_Smith profile image

      PB_Smith 7 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.

    • profile image

      gh057 7 years ago

      dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge!!!

    • PB_Smith profile image

      PB_Smith 7 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

    • PB_Smith profile image

      PB_Smith 7 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.

    • profile image

      Adarsh Sharma 7 years ago

      Good news..........

    • profile image

      Brandon 7 years ago

      Just testing before I make a long post that doesn't show up...

    • profile image

      JESUS GIVEN CONTACT HIGH 7 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

    • profile image

      Hal I Tosis 7 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.

    • profile image

      Hal I Tosis 7 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

    • James A Watkins profile image

      James A Watkins 7 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?

    • profile image

      Anonymous 7 years ago

      Hal, a gentleman knows when to concede he's lost the fight.

      You lost the fight.

    • profile image

      Andrew 7 years ago

      Serious question, Hal: are you a 14 year old girl? Because you are acting like one. Grow up.

    • profile image

      SamK 7 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 :).

    • profile image

      Hal is Pathetic 7 years ago

      "Why?

      Because I said so."

      Why?

      Because you don't have any definitive data. Everyone who has read this post knows this.

    • profile image

      still laughing at you 7 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.

    • profile image

      petawb 7 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.

    • profile image

      Alexi 7 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.

    • profile image

      Oscar.UK 7 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

    • profile image

      TheArtOfWar 7 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.

    • profile image

      Scooty McFly 7 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.

    • profile image

      Lucy D. 7 years ago

      We are the Universe arguing with itself! 8)

    • profile image

      Andy 7 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.

    • Hal Licino profile image
      Author

      Hal Licino 7 years ago from Toronto

      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...)

      :)

    • profile image

      Acadian 7 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.

    • profile image

      Owned 7 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!

    • profile image

      in position 7 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.

    • profile image

      Thatsfunny 7 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

    • profile image

      Eseffbee 7 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.

    • profile image

      Esseffbee 7 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.

    • profile image

      mf2112 7 years ago

      Hal,

      Thank you for finally admitting you have nothing. I will be "fuming" during Christmas alright.

    • profile image

      Esseffbee 7 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.

    • profile image

      James 7 years ago

      Oh, so you're just a troll then

    • profile image

      reesta 7 years ago

      Just read this on reddit, and wow....what can I say. Hal you lose! PB you win!

    • profile image

      Hey Hal 7 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/

    • profile image

      Guest 7 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.

    • profile image

      arch 7 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.

    • profile image

      Shaun 7 years ago

      You have a lot of growing up to do, Hal.

    • profile image

      Grim Jestor 7 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.

    • profile image

      Sir Lollington 7 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.

    • profile image

      Redditor 7 years ago

      Hal, I look forward to your non-existent reply.

    • profile image

      Jesus 7 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.

    • profile image

      ajx 7 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).

    • profile image

      Jeff 7 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...

    • profile image

      Hal is Pathetic 7 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.

    • profile image

      tugg 7 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.

    • profile image

      Anonymous 7 years ago

      OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS

    • profile image

      LIes 7 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."

    • profile image

      laughing at you 7 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.

    • profile image

      Henry 7 years ago

      Sober person here, patiently waiting for the disclosure of all your massive clinical data.

    • profile image

      Herp Derp 7 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

    • profile image

      DS 7 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.

    • profile image

      shame on hal 7 years ago

      So what he's saying is, he's got nothing?

    • profile image

      joey. 7 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.

    • profile image

      Hal_should_suicide 7 years ago

      Comment censoring power trip much Hal?

    • profile image

      Lazlo Toth 7 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!

    • profile image

      Disbeliever 7 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.

    • profile image

      S. Koeller 7 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

    • profile image

      outside observer 7 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.

    • profile image

      Frank 7 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

    • profile image

      Dan 7 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.

    • profile image

      gc 7 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.

    • profile image

      Shii 7 years ago

      Don't waste your time with Hal. He's clearly trolling.

    • profile image

      JPco 7 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.

    • profile image

      Le Sigh 7 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.

    • profile image

      Mordum 7 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!

    • profile image

      i3inary 7 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.

    • profile image

      Tanner 7 years ago

      Hal,

      You are the master troll. Keep it up.

    • profile image

      Graham 7 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.

    • profile image

      Shawn S 7 years ago

      Hal, why don't you stop wasting everyone's time and post a legitimate rebuttal.

    • profile image

      Vincent Garcia 7 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.

    • profile image

      Kymani 7 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.

    • profile image

      Pleurat 7 years ago

      "Lives for cats, pasta and motorcycles."

      FTW Hal, FTW!

    • profile image

      Eric 7 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.

    • profile image

      Redditlurker 7 years ago

      Hal,

      You really should thank PB_Smith. He's making your failure famous.

    • profile image

      RedditSaysHi 7 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.

    • profile image

      kicktown 7 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.

    • profile image

      Leo T 7 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.

    • profile image

      Andrew Spellman 7 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.

    • profile image

      Pajamapalooza 7 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!

    • profile image

      HalOVER9000 7 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.

    • profile image

      Bob 7 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"

    • profile image

      Oscar.UK 7 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.

    • profile image

      HIEFO 7 years ago

      Wow. Hal loses.

    • profile image

      Matt 7 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.

    • profile image

      Ming Ping 7 years ago

      Thanks for digging your hole a little deeper Hal. Good luck climbing out of it.

    • profile image

      Robert 7 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.

    • profile image

      Agent00Funk 7 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.

    • profile image

      Drug User 7 years ago

      This seemed to have promise. Hal, I am truly disappointed in your lack of discipline.

    • profile image

      Andrew 7 years ago

      Hal, your logic is flawless.

    • profile image

      some medical student 7 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/

    • profile image

      New 7 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?

    • profile image

      I'm just sayin' 7 years ago

      Hal, my pal, you just got pwned! Please rise to the challenge and acknowledge that someone was just that much better.

    • profile image

      jwalhol 7 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.