Friends are trying to get me to consider dropping

CaNNaBiZ CaNucK

CaNNaBiZ CaNucK

Well-Known Member
Just out of curiosity, Thatguy, when you say 'repercussion' are you speaking of negative effects stemming from the impurities and anything that may have been added, or are you speaking of potential repercussions resulting from your own reactions to (hypothetically) 'a perfectly pure sample'?
 
ThatGuy113

ThatGuy113

Well-Known Member
Both, Either a bad tab or The possibility of own reactions. Why would it just be one, when you do risk analysis you account for every possible combination and outcome. To not try to account for both, you would be risking unknowingly hurting yourself with out knowing what the actual chance of it happening was. Essentially why weigh the pros against cons if your not going to include all of the pros and cons. What iw as trying to say was i have nothing against the drug itself if their was a perfect one made every single time i would try it. I never accused acid itself of hurting the guy down the street. What i said was a bad hit that did it, bad hit meaning it was not produced correctly. When you are using those studies it is referring to the assumption that the only variable is good acid not some other badly mixed knock off. Im not tryign to say the actual drug itself does damage to people but rather the people who produce the drug in a low quality can hurt people.
 
CaNNaBiZ CaNucK

CaNNaBiZ CaNucK

Well-Known Member
ThatGuy113 said:
Both, Either a bad tab or The possibility of own reactions. Why would it just be one, when you do risk analysis you account for every possible combination and outcome. To not try to account for both, you would be risking unknowingly hurting yourself with out knowing what the actual chance of it happening was. Essentially why weigh the pros against cons if your not going to include all of the pros and cons.
Click to expand...
I just ask because you were stressing the greed and impurity factors, that's all.
 
gogrow

gogrow

confused
gogrow said:
Just a lil quick science....

LSD psychosis or LSD-induced schizophrenia? A multimethod inquiry.

Vardy MM, Kay SR.
Abstract

We studied whether patients hospitalized for LSD psychosis are clinically separable from acute schizophrenics. The family histories, manifest symptoms, premorbid adjustment, and profiles on an extensive test battery were analyzed for 52 LSD psychotics and 29 matched first-break schizophrenics. The LSD patients did not differ from schizophrenics in incidence of psychosis or suicide among the parents. However, the rate of parental alcoholism for LSD psychotics far exceeded that for schizophrenics and the general population. The two groups were distinguished on some clinical features but were equivalent in premorbid adjustment, on most cognitive measures when initially hospitalized or reassessed three to five years later, and in number of subsequent rehospitalizations. Thus, in most respects the LSD psychotics were fundamentally similar to schizophrenics in geneaology, phenomenology, and course of illness. The findings supported a model of LSD psychosis as a drug-induced schizophreniform reaction in persons vulnerable to both substance abuse and psychosis.
Click to expand...
CaNNaBiZ CaNucK said:
While it's true that it was probably LSD acquired on the street, it was still most likely Sandoz acid that was being circulated. The first recorded 'underground lab' was not assembled until Bernard Roseman did so in 1962.

Edit: But this is no proof however of any tampering that may have occurred when delysid ended up in the hands of the blackmarket. Just as it occurs today, it doesn't matter how pure the product is when it leaves any lab, it comes down to the distributor's means of doing so.
Click to expand...

the above quote of myself is a 1983 study... if that helps.... it was banned nationally in 68, so you cant say that it was "medical grade" or whatever. I think you should just admit that the science is against you and the only reason you have for your reasoning is your own preconceived notions of what it is. You believe propaganda and urban legends, yet you refuse to accept science. You are doing nothing at all to help ANY drug cause, in fact, I feel it is people such as yourself that keep our nation's view on "illicit drugs" exactly the way it is today, and was 50years ago.

Ironically enough, I feel it is people with your train of thought that need a good psychedelic experience the most... go figure.

*edit* quoted the wrong post, sorry bro... was directed at 'thatguy'
 
CaNNaBiZ CaNucK

CaNNaBiZ CaNucK

Well-Known Member
gogrow said:
the above quote of myself is a 1983 study... if that helps.... it was banned nationally in 68, so you cant say that it was "medical grade" or whatever. I think you should just admit that the science is against you and the only reason you have for your reasoning is your own preconceived notions of what it is. You believe propaganda and urban legends, yet you refuse to accept science. You are doing nothing at all to help ANY drug cause, in fact, I feel it is people such as yourself that keep our nation's view on "illicit drugs" exactly the way it is today, and was 50years ago.

Ironically enough, I feel it is people with your train of thought that need a good psychedelic experience the most... go figure.

*edit* quoted the wrong post, sorry bro... was directed at 'thatguy'
Click to expand...
No worries ;) I was confused at first though lol

So seventies and early eighties acid were used by the subjects.. so the doses were definitely from clandestine labs.. so this confirms that whether the acid comes from government approved sources or not, the same conclusion was reached in both studies.
 
ThatGuy113

ThatGuy113

Well-Known Member
gogrow said:
the above quote of myself is a 1983 study... if that helps.... it was banned nationally in 68, so you cant say that it was "medical grade" or whatever. I think you should just admit that the science is against you and the only reason you have for your reasoning is your own preconceived notions of what it is. You believe propaganda and urban legends, yet you refuse to accept science. You are doing nothing at all to help ANY drug cause, in fact, I feel it is people such as yourself that keep our nation's view on "illicit drugs" exactly the way it is today, and was 50years ago.

Ironically enough, I feel it is people with your train of thought that need a good psychedelic experience the most... go figure.

*edit* quoted the wrong post, sorry bro... was directed at 'thatguy'
Click to expand...
See with the little information you gave me what arguments am i supposed to make. I would love if you had a full or more of this study in its original context. Any links?

Do you really even understand my train of thought. This whole thread has not always been accurate when making assumptions about my arguments.
 
ThatGuy113

ThatGuy113

Well-Known Member
https://www.dmt-nexus.com/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=7190

For now here is some interesting reading i found. Yes it is another forum but for the sake of argument it is a legit as any argument made on this board. They all seem to agree that acid is not harmful but there is bad acid being sold. What ive meant by bad acid like i said earlier is not the pure recipe, which means even a 100% imposter would be a bad hit. This is because you cannot tell a perfect tab from a bad tab.
 
gogrow

gogrow

confused
here you go..... decent enough info. Though there is PLENTY of real information out there, and you have the world's largest known conglomeration of knowledge right at your fingertips.... I'm sure you've been through enough school to tell a scientific study/experiment with facts from a bullshit opinion of someone's...

http://psychicinvestigator.com/Drugs/LSD.htm
 
ThatGuy113

ThatGuy113

Well-Known Member
gogrow said:
here you go..... decent enough info. Though there is PLENTY of real information out there, and you have the world's largest known conglomeration of knowledge right at your fingertips.... I'm sure you've been through enough school to tell a scientific study/experiment with facts from a bullshit opinion of someone's...

http://psychicinvestigator.com/Drugs/LSD.htm
Click to expand...
Once again your not reading what i type. That article is basically a acid wiki, including the study you are talking about which was a sampling of the types of people who would develop psychosis easier then others. That whole article does not prove anything ive said wrong. MY beef with the whole thing again is the counterfeit and low quality amounts of acid out on the market that could cause adverse effects because they are NOT acid. What if there is something in the batch that would not be in a legit batch of acid. You dont know because once again you cant tell good from bad until you take it.
 
gogrow

gogrow

confused
ThatGuy113 said:
Once again your not reading what i type. That article is basically a acid wiki, including the study you are talking about which was a sampling of the types of people who would develop psychosis easier then others. That whole article does not prove anything ive said wrong. MY beef with the whole thing again is the counterfeit and low quality amounts of acid out on the market that could cause adverse effects because they are NOT acid. What if there is something in the batch that would not be in a legit batch of acid. You dont know because once again you cant tell good from bad until you take it.
Click to expand...
if you dont know fuck about acid, or the market, or how its made, etc... HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THAT LSD IS UNSAFE, ADULTERATED, COUNTERFEIT, ETC??? quick question, do you know what few chemicals are active at low enough levels to be dosed/passed off as acid?? If so, have you looked into their effects on psychosis? or hell, better yet, how well versed are you in the psychological field to even be discussing psychosis and its various possible causes? You dont want to listen to several very experienced, knowledgeable people, and you also discredit anything scientific thrown at you..... What the hell was the purpose of this thread then?? That's my only question now.
 
Ichi

Ichi

Well-Known Member
gogrow said:
if you dont know fuck about acid, or the market, or how its made, etc... HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THAT LSD IS UNSAFE, ADULTERATED, COUNTERFEIT, ETC??? quick question, do you know what few chemicals are active at low enough levels to be dosed/passed off as acid?? If so, have you looked into their effects on psychosis? or hell, better yet, how well versed are you in the psychological field to even be discussing psychosis and its various possible causes? You dont want to listen to several very experienced, knowledgeable people, and you also discredit anything scientific thrown at you..... What the hell was the purpose of this thread then?? That's my only question now.
Click to expand...
In addition to this point on counterfeit acid, I would like to ask a question in regards to poisons or adulterants. What poison or adulterant do you think could be dangerous at such low levels? There are a few forms of degraded LSD that could make you a little physically uncomfortable. What could you possible think that you are getting. Name shit, not hate, people can clear anything up with links in a few min, its just going to hurt your feelings because you are being so unnecessarily stubborn and closed to good advice. Having a mind that must be proven wrong is always painful...especially on any psychedelic.
 
Passafire

Passafire

Member
You need to expand your awareness. Stop thinking about it and just do it. You're putting it on a damn pedestal! I didn't know shit about it either before I did for the first time. Then I discovered why everyone loves it so much, hippies are hippies, and finally understood. I started figuring out anything, thought thoughts i've never thought before. This is what will let you take a giant step back from reality, start exploring OUTSIDE the box, abandon your concern about other peoples' opinions, separate your true self from the ego you have been forming your entire life.

I fucking love LSD, it is definitely my cup of tea, but perhaps not everyone's. Just don't judge it if you've never even experienced it. my 2 cents
 
ANC

ANC

Well-Known Member
I think it is Terrence McKenna who said, Those people with the biggest problem with acid are the ones who has never taken it.
 
ThatGuy113

ThatGuy113

Well-Known Member
Most people arent reading my actual posts they are making assumptions about what im saying and getting the wrong arguments. You guys are just as stubborn as i am, Ive been sitting here just trying to play devils advocate. I mean if lets say one of you guys went to a forum that was anti acid, youd be the lone person there for it. Your arguments would get covered up with indirect responses to the actual issues you are presenting. Thats the internet. I have left pretty good arguments to everything else that has been said. Whats wrong with a decent debate about something. Just because nothing big really comes out of it doesnt mean there was nothing gained at all. Ive never got snappy, angry or aggressive but some of you guys don't like getting your buttons pushed having acid questioned. Thats ok there is nothing wrong with that at all because its a natural response. I have a feeling though its not something some want to hear about because you feel im attacking the actual idea of this drug which im not. My spin was bringing the downfalls of people who aren't true to the drug. If im really that uneducated on the subject this thread would of NEVER made it to 10 pages. It would have died very quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top