Talk:Lysergic acid diethylamide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lysergic acid diethylamide article.
Article policies
Former featured article Lysergic acid diethylamide is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 29, 2004.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
August 2004 - December 2005

December 2005 - February 2006

February 2006 - September 2007


Contents

[edit] Legal Status?

The page cites LSD is a schedule 1 drug, but it is a schedule 3 according to the US schedule code found here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/812.html

[edit] Endorsing?

I Know it sounds weird, but htis article seems like it is endorsing the use of LSD. I think that some sentances should be reworded, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.49.231 (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are many negative effects of acid, such as, it can permanently screw up your eye sight with ghosting effects of lights. This should be first in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.23.25 (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

LSD cannot screw up your eyesight with ghosting effects of lights, any visual effects are purely psychological and therefore completely unrelated to eyesight. Only the actions of an individual could harm eyesight, your "fact" is as ridiculous as saying you can damage eyesight about thinking about hurting your eyes.

Ryan1711~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.82.8 (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Psyhcological effect? these "ghosting" effects cannot be produced by psychological effect, the symptoms would be due to a change in neurotransmitter and neural activity in the optic region of the brain due to exposure of the chemical agent. Suggesting that a physical problem of such is psychological after one has consumed a drug which alters the brains hardware, including the visual system is absurd 99.232.142.253 (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)D.B

That's absolutely ridiculous. The ghosting and trails is because you are intoxicated on LSD, not from any other interaction. Experiencing ego death means your brain shut down and you are really dead? Come on. Do some research.206.248.133.121 (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote a study, if you would! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.20.20 (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Physical Effects?

It looks like the source (35) just shows an abstract and doesn't indicate any of the information claimed under the physical effects section. Those effects should either be removed, or a better source should be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.232.163 (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Micrograms and Potency

The following statement is no longer valid and was not valid when the article was made neither: "LSD is, by mass, one of the most potent drugs yet discovered. Dosages of LSD are measured in micrograms (µg), or millionths of a gram. By comparison, dosages of almost all other drugs, both recreational and medical, are measured in milligrams (mg), or thousandths of a gram." Apart from not having a source or citation, there are now drugs with far more potency than LSD, namely:

  • Fentanyl which is 1000 times more potent than morphine, a pain killer administrated by a patch at 12 µg/h (micrograms per hour) with a fatal dose of 300µg in an intolerant opioid user. Fentanyl in extremely low doses mixed with other substances is often sold as street heroin due to its potency. Activating dose starting at 10µg in humans.
  • Etorphine which is 3000 times more potent than morphine. Although a pain killer, due to its potency, it is typically used to tranquilize and sedate large mammals such as elephants and rhinos. One drop on a human skin is enough to kill. Activating dose starting at 3.5µg in humans.
  • Carfentanil which is 10,000 times more potent than morphine is also another pain killer with activity starting in humans at 1µg/h making it the most potent drug. Although a pain killer, due to its potency, it is typically used to tranquilize and sedate large mammals such as elephants and rhinos. 1/3 of drop on a human skin is enough to kill. Activating dose starting at 1µg in humans.
  • Etonitazene

LSD activating dose starts at 50µg in humans. Making Carfentanil 50 times more potent than LSD in activating dose comparison. Fentanyl is 5 times more potent than LSD.

Fentanyl was discovered in the 1950's, and its usage in the streets recreationally became apparent in the 1970's. Etorphine was discovered in the 1960's. So it could be argued LSD was one of the most potent drugs for a period of time until the discovery of Fentanyl in the 1950's. Out of the above only Fentanyl is used in humans to treat pain.

There are many more which you are free to find your selves, but I thought I'll add the ones that are morphine related, specially fentanyl which is a typical heroin substitute to keep within the "drug" category e.g. LSD, heroin, morphine, cocaine and so on. So please either remove the sentence "LSD is, by mass, one of the most potent drugs yet discovered....." or rephrase it. And its worth to note there are medicine's far more potent than the LSD, one being the frog poison derived pain killer (which by the way rots/deprives the nerves from staying moist with long term use). So there we go, a medicine and a recreational drug more potent than LSD. --87.194.3.52 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"LSD is, by mass, one of the most potent drugs yet discovered." Cacycle 22:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


I guess you didn't read on, this sentence is false: "By comparison, dosages of almost all other drugs, both recreational and medical, are measured in milligrams (mg)"... since there are many other drugs measured measured in units far lower than that of LSD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.117.164 (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Most drugs are measured in milligrams, 4 drugs which are all complex synthetic opioids, isn't enough to justify change, but 'almost all' should bechanges to 'most' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.0.93 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree, this is a misleading statement and it does not belong in an otherwise well documented and well researched wiki. There are many drugs that are active in the nano or microgram range. Silverweed 05:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions to science

Crick was alledgedly high when discovered Double Helix, and Kary Mullis was also supposedly High when they discovered PCR. Any other notables? Eedo Bee 15:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? Are there sources for this? ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are, and there are many more notables (with sources), and God knows how many unsourced and unmentioned notables. There's a Mullis' reference in his auto-biography Tip-toeing Through the Mind Field. --Thoric 18:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... I'm willing to believe this, but you'd definitely need a VERY reliable source before that gets anywhere near the article. --76.16.71.212 (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, maybe a speculative section should be added that if only LSD were compulsory and handed out by society, rather than society trying to repress the freedom of the populace, the human race would have the cure for cancer and warp drive by now!!

[edit] Rearrange / Delete some pictures

I don't think we need three pictures of blotter paper, especially since the use of it isn't described until the Forms of LSD section. I would like to see the close-up picture of blotter paper moved down to that section, and the other two [less useful] pictures deleted. The picture of LSD solution could be bumped up to that section, partly because it doesn't quite fit [physically] into the section it's in now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strumphs (talk • contribs) 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thio-LSD

Could you make a drug like LSD except with the oxygen replaced by a sulphur, would it be very short acting the way thiobarbiturates like thiopental are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.0.93 (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, nobody has ever synthesized it and its properties are therfore completely unknown. Very interesting idea, it should be relatively easy to synthesize. Cacycle 04:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
So would Seleno-LSD.

[edit] Synesthsia physical or psycological?

Synesthesia is listed under the heading of Physical Effects, but I think that it would be suited better to psycological. What does anyone else think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.128.6 (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.108.251 (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a gray area. "Smelling" a color, or "seeing" music involves perceived physical sensation. Technically under the same line of thinking, nausea could be classified as psychological. --Thoric (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LSD and I.Q.

Does anyone have the source for the LSD studies showing a 10% increase in linear IQ? Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I find the claim really improbable. I just looked through several (but not all) papers from the Spring Grove researchers and couldn't find a related claim. Richard Yensen, from that group, didn't mention any such finding in his 1994 book chapter 'Perspectives on LSD and psychotherapy' in the 50 Years of LSD book. Gustav Lienert and others not in the Spring Grove group did examine how acute LSD administration affected performance on IQ tests, but that is not relevant to this claim. Lacking a real reference (sorry, Robert Anton Wilson), I have provisionally removed the entire sentence. MattBagg 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1970 to the present...

This subject on the article states that "much of what has been, and is currently sold as LSD since 2000, is in fact, not LSD", but why exactly is this true? Does anyone have a source they can site for this? If I recall correctly, LSD blotters, the most common form of LSD sold on the street, is almost impossible to adulterate with anything other than pure LSD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.5.15 (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Today much of what is sold as LSD is actually 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromoamphetamine, also known as DOB (the article on DOB features a section on the misrepresentation of DOB as LSD.) DOB is active in doses as low as 1 mg, so active doses can be distributed in the form of blotter. The effects of DOB are generally described as similar to LSD but with a longer onset and duration, and more prominent stimulant properties which can be explained by the fact that DOB is an amphetamine. Whether an actual majority of modern "LSD" is indeed DOB is difficult to determine and I don't know of any sources that quantify what portion of black market "LSD" is actually DOB represented as LSD, but the fact that DOB is commonly misrepresented as LSD is well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.173.228 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Where is this well documented evidence? The article sighted is merely news and says nothing about the actual availability. Maybe someone could find a citation from the DEA or some study. 71.191.205.66 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


The DEA Microgram Bulletin has many references to blotter tabs presumed to be LSD being Research Chemicals when analyzed. Cite that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.64.235 (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy the "much of" either. I have no doubt that DOB is being sold as LSD, but I do doubt that it accounts for more than a small minority of "LSD" sales. I think we should change "much of" to "some of". The 2000 Pickard and Apperson bust may have made a temporary dent in supply, but based on my own, er, original research production has rebounded since then. thx1138 (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Grammatical: Important - "government quoted" in this section should be hyphenated because this is an adjective phrase. In parituclar, the current form causes comprehension problems, since it appears that the Government is the subject and "quoted" is a past-tense verb otherwise. 209.60.45.2 (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)MJP 4/30/2008


This is a good source to site. At the supposed LSD blotter near the top of the page the writer at the bottom says that blotters with designer drugs not LSD are common and that LSD on blotter is actually uncommon nowadays. That is best source you could get.

"Over the past five years, there have been numerous reports of blotter paper laced with drugs other than LSD, usually designer tryptamines and phenethylamines. However, use of benzodiazepines (such as alprazolam) for this purpose is unusual. Submissions of blotter paper actually containing LSD are currently uncommon.]"

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/programs/forensicsci/microgram/mg0508/mg0508.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.102.75 (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a hallucinogen?

This article states some effects of LSD use such as: " an experience of radiant colors, objects and surfaces appearing to ripple or "breathe," colored patterns behind the eyes", and then states that LSD is not truly a hallucinogen. Webster defines hallucinogen as a substance which brings about hallucinations when ingested, and defines hallucination as "a perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD)" quoted exactly. So yeah, I really think that going as far to say LSD isn't really a hallucinogen is stretching the definition of the word, considering that colors behind the eyes and surfaces moving around are actually hallucinations. Someone should edit these claims out of the article 69.85.216.191 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Our article is correct, psychedelic drugs do not really let you experience nonexistent objects and persons like the deliriants. Geometric patterns and distortion of senses are clearly not hallucinations. Сасусlе 03:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And yet the article says "LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) is one of the major drugs making up the hallucinogen class of drugs". The OED refers to LSD and mescaline in its citations for "Hallucinogen" - as does Merriam-Webster. Encyclopedia Britannica clearly has LSD and ergot as hallucinogens. But, as you say, their definitions of hallucinations are not like the reported effects of LSD etc. A bit of a mess this definition lark. Myrvin (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"Hallucinations are different from illusions. In an illusory experience, a genuine sensation is attributed to an incorrect cause, misinterpreting a coat hanging on a door to be an intruder or thinking there is water on a hot road, due to the heat rising from the road." (from Hallucination)
"Hallucinations may also be associated with drug use (particularly hallucinogenic drugs)" (also from Hallucination)Myrvin (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
and
"A typical "hallucination" induced by a psychedelic drug is more accurately described as a modification of regular perception, and the subject is usually quite aware of the illusory and personal nature of their perceptions. Deleriants, such as diphenhydramine and atropine, may cause hallucinations in the proper sense." (from Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants) LSD, Mescaline, and Psilocin/Psilocybin are psychedelics.
WikiDegausser (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As usual, dictionaries are not a reliable source for factual claims, especially about obscure subjects. "The OED calls LSD an hallucinogen" is not good evidence for the claim that LSD actually produces the sort of results that the OED calls "hallucinations". The OED is a reference work for how words in English are historically used, not for whether those historical uses are actually accurate descriptions of the world. It has an entry for "dragon" too, but that doesn't mean dragons exist. --FOo (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"As usual" is rather strong. The EB says it as well. Many scientific and biochemical definitions would say so too (See the citations in the OED reference). The question is whether or not these sources are wrong about the effects that are caused by LSD. Wikipedia may be on its own here; and, of course, it may be correct. (PS The OED says dragons are mythical) Myrvin (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the confusion probably results from the current class name "hallucinogen" in the scientific literature. However, this somewhat unfortunately chosen term does not mean (or proof) that there actually are real hallucinations similar to those seen in people hallucinating (e.g. caused by deliriants, psychosis, or delirium tremens). Сасусlе 21:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe the problem lies in a too-narrow idea of "hallucination". The Hallucination article has: "A hallucination is a perception in the absence of a stimulus". A blue colour sensation where there is no blue, a moving sensation where there is no movement, and even a weird sound when the sounds are not weird, may come under this definition. The OED (pace FOo) also has "1. The mental condition of being deceived or mistaken, or of entertaining unfounded notions; with a and pl., an idea or belief to which nothing real corresponds; an illusion." Perhaps this part of the article could be altered to say: "LSD typically does not produce hallucinations of objects where there are no such objects as the ......". Myrvin (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

--

I find the argument that LSD isn't really a hallucinogen interesting, but some of the talk sounds here like speculation more suited to a forum rather than proper discussion about Wikipedia article content. The sentence "LSD does typically not produce real hallucinations as the deliriants do." has been tagged as requiring citation since January. So please can somebody find a reliable source to support it. I'm all for challenging people's preconceptions, but not under the auspices of original research. The point needs to be substantiated with a good supporting NPOV reference if it is to remain.

--SallyScot (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JFK + LSD

yes I'm new and stupid at wikipedia, I included a sentence about JFK taking LSD with Mary Pinchot Meyers, wife of CIA agent Cord Meyers,citing as a reference Jim Hougan's book Spooks (also could have cited Steamshovel Press #10). I realize this is tendentious assertion, controversial,still I'm curious to hear the rationale for this deletion.(Also, to sound really, unbelievable, I have a copy of a 1957 little pet pamphlet/book, like Care And Feeding Of Budgies, called Fancy Guppies, in which, starting on page 6,discussing how to make guppies colors brighter, they recommend putting LSD-25 into the aquarium. Not making this up. Where would guppy fanciers get LSD in 1957? It makes you look suspiciously at the guppy fanciers in the pamphlet's photos. I'm dying to reference this under Recreational Use, but I feel certain it would be deleted with a snort, unless I could e-mail the people who deleted my JFK reference a photocopy of this Fancy Guppies booklet...)9eyedeel (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous edits

Looking at recent edits, it seems to me that, for the sake of the occasional minor grammatical change and the odd reversions of others vandalism (which would get picked up by login account users anyway), anonymous edits are generally more trouble than they're worth. This may be a feature of the particular subject matter here, an emotive subject for many, but in any case, I suggest that a request for the article's permanent semi-protection be made. This would prevent all the anonymous nonsense while allowing signed in users to continue to improve the article. Anonymous users could continue to post on this talk page.

We could extend further back with the analysis, to look at earlier edits (e.g. November), but I think it'll just suggest the same thing, anonymous edits do not add enough value to this article to make their trouble worthwhile for the rest of us.

--SallyScot (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Date and time IP Address Analysis of edit
01:50, 12 December 2007 74.71.100.100 legitimate edit
23:29, 11 December 2007 71.181.233.99 vandalism
02:02, 11 December 2007 71.252.197.211 revert vandalism
22:10, 10 December 2007 160.7.111.111 vandalism
13:30, 10 December 2007 142.227.24.3 factually incorrect
01:08, 10 December 2007 71.246.46.64 POV / vandalism
00:38, 10 December 2007 192.207.76.43 vandalism
07:59, 9 December 2007 75.37.5.188 uncited
21:43, 7 December 2007 209.17.179.1 vandalism
19:55, 7 December 2007 170.211.93.125 vandalism
16:10, 7 December 2007 66.225.141.139 revert of vandalism
14:48, 7 December 2007 69.143.211.178 vandalism
04:12, 7 December 2007 64.160.39.159 vandalism
21:51, 6 December 2007 129.115.251.69 minor gramatical
03:15, 6 December 2007 75.70.246.116 vandalism
18:56, 5 December 2007 207.63.53.9 vandalism
18:45, 5 December 2007 128.54.78.211 no change (whitespace change)
17:07, 5 December 2007 163.248.157.77 vandalism
13:07, 5 December 2007 79.67.127.133 minor grammatical
16:40, 4 December 2007 205.202.240.101 vandalism
00:51, 4 December 2007 24.231.175.62 vandalism
21:15, 3 December 2007 213.46.204.207 spam link
20:35, 3 December 2007 63.80.131.10 vandalism
13:53, 3 December 2007 75.118.141.244 vandalism
13:52, 3 December 2007 75.118.141.244 vandalism
07:07, 3 December 2007 69.245.2.63 vandalism
01:25, 3 December 2007 24.14.5.167 vandalism
21:03, 2 December 2007 63.241.158.225 vandalism
04:33, 2 December 2007 66.66.73.239 vandalism
17:16, 1 December 2007 72.240.98.202 external link (later removed)
04:17, 1 December 2007 67.35.91.126 vandalism
01:24, 1 December 2007 201.201.10.174 removal of image

Summary: 21 cases of anonymous IP vandalism in 12 days, compared to (arguably) two edits which added to the article. - An anonymous IP vandalism rate of over 90%.

The article was semi-protected on the 12th December 2007. - Effective for one month.

My feeling is, particularly because of the nature of the subject matter, anonymous IP vandalism will simply start ramping up again not too long after the ban ends.

I've started a related discussion topic on the Wikipedia:Protection_policy talk page

--SallyScot (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus --Lox (t,c) 12:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lysergic acid diethylamide → LSD — This article has been moved recently to its current title without discussion, although the substance is known almost exclusively per its acronym. See also WP:NCA and Talk:DNA. —Eleassar my talk 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support. Reasons explained above. --Eleassar my talk 11:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This substance is almost universally known by the initialism "LSD", and the common naming convention should override standard chemical naming in this case: DNA is a good example of the same principle being applied. -- The Anome 11:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While I understand the intent, LSD brings users to this page. This is in the same format and manner as other drugs, medications, animals... pretty much most scientific-related articles on Wikipedia. There is no effective difference in moving the page to LSD as that page already redirects here. The end result does not change and thus there is no benefit. VigilancePrime 11:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
To understand the benefit see Talk:DNA/Archive 6. --Eleassar my talk 12:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I see a benefit in that typing in LSD may well redirect to Lysergic acid diethylamide but it could be confusing to see that name at the top. Why not keep it obvious? David D. (Talk) 12:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per discussion at talk DNA. There are always exceptions to the rule. This drugs is known universally by the acronym, it makes a lot more sense for it to be at LSD rather than a full chemical name. Wikipedia is not a professional chemistry or pharamcologists society and there is no need to have everything consistent when common sense suggests that all wikipedia's readers will be typing in LSD to find this page. David D. (Talk) 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, as per the principle of least astonishment, if people search for LSD, as they will, then they should go to the page on LSD. We need a disambiguation page for such things as Lysosomal storage diseases, but those will not be any more than a tiny fraction of the total traffic. Tim Vickers 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Too many people are only looking at this in one direction. There is no reason why this particular "LSD" should receive primary disambiguation over all the others listed at LSD (disambiguation). The LSD (disambiguation) page should be at LSD, not this article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
One very good reason, Gene, if a teenager told you that "I've got LSD", would your first thought really be that the poor thing was suffering from a Lysosomal Storage Disease? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm more concerned with things like editors linking "LSD radix sorts process the integer representations starting from the least significant digit and move towards the most significant digit" and "For more demanding use however, such as driving off-road, or for high performance vehicles, such a state of affairs is undesirable, and the LSD can be employed to deal with it" and "The Bay-class are based on the Royal Schelde Enforcer design, similar to Dutch and Spanish LSDs" or a whole host of other things known as LSD.
Comment that's about a toss-up with me, about as acceptable as my suggestion of moving the disambiguation page to LSD. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I full-heartedly agree, leave the article at Lysergic_acid_diethylamide (as for all drugs with a halfway pronounceable name), keep LSD as a redirect here (because it is by far the most common meaning of this acronym, in accordance with Wikipedia:Disambiguation), and keep the link to LSD (disambiguation) on top of this article. There is no reason to change anything! Сасусlе 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support in this case. Mostly I'd agree with the WP:ACRONYM recommendation to spell things out in full, but this is one of those cases where the abbreviation is overwhelmingly more popular than the full name, and overwhelmingly more popular than any alternative use of the term. If links to the redirect outnumber links to the subject by 10:1, it's more straightforward to swap the two around. I don't think maintenance would be an issue, but even if it was, WP is written for readers, not editors, and for a general audience, not specialists. --DeLarge (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move back to LSD. LSD is the most recognised name for this substance, and this substance is the most common meaning of LSD. Andrewa (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

Maintenance issues. Having this article at LSD will result in a number of links to it being links to the wrong article, and maintaining them is relatively difficult, having to check through the What links here and retain all the correct links. Having the disambiguation page at LSD simplifies this maintenance; there are few legitimate links to a disambiguation page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, there is no disambiguation page at LSD its a redirect. Or is this a proposal? What would go on the disambiguation page? David D. (Talk) 20:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Just saw your link above so i now see what would go on the disambig page. I was looking through the 'what links here' list for LSD and there over a thousand. However, after a cursory check, I could not find any that were linking to LSD inadvertently. Do you have any idea how many need to be corrected? David D. (Talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That's very telling actually, over 1,000 links about psychedelics, drugs and rock music point to LSD, but there are only about 100 direct links to Lysergic acid diethylamide. People link to the page name they expect. Even more reason to move this article to the common usage. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I'll be happy to entertain examples from Gene. At this point, due to the sea of correct links to LSD, I'm still not sure what his real concern is. David D. (Talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
My concern is that we do have to wade through thousands of links to see whether it is a problem or not. By having LSD as the disambiguation page, we'd have a much smaller number of links that somebody could go through periodically and disambiguate. As it is, it is almost impossible to find out if any are mis-directed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Note also that people looking to do the disambiguation, and clear the lysergic acid diethylamide links from the disambiguation page, would be able to use the easier to remember (not having to worry so much about remembering the spelling) redirect from LSD-25 to accomplish that disambiguation. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that most of the links through LSD refer to the drug, but not all of them do. Here are some which do not:

Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with maintenance if this article is moved back to LSD. There's some work to do, yes, and there's an army of volunteers who will, in time, do it. And there are good reasons to think that our time will be well spent. Andrewa (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Bicycle day incongruity

It says that he had to ride his bike home because cars were 'unavailable'. But then towards the end of the section it says that he heard a passing automobile. What's the deal with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.136.28 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just speculating here, but maybe automobiles were just more expensive and he couldn't afford one, or maybe it was a truck being used to ship something (surely those are necessary even in war times). --76.16.71.212 (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effects: Psychosis

Why is it "not encyclopedic" to state that LSD is a psychedelic substance which occasionally causes psychotic behaviour in people who have not taken it? See the revert. --mms (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please use our sister project Wikiquote for aphorisms. Сасусlе 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LSD being slightly bitter.

I edited out the part about LSD being slightly bitter. I know it is, and I believe it was Albert Hofman who wrote it. The reference it cites in wikipedia however does not mention the taste at all. This should be in here, but a proper reference should be found first. 72.66.238.81 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Put back in, it is in the reference, just not in the part that is accessible online. Сасусlе 14:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA Status?

How in hell is this article not featured anymore? - tbone (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trazodone

The Dosage section ends "...taking a SSRI such as Prozac or Trazadone will counteract the effects of LSD and aid in sleeping." Trazodone is not an SSRI.

146.94.186.94 (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In the "Production" Section

"...could provide 100 million doses, sufficient for supplying the entire illicit demand of the United States."

Could supply the US demand.... for one day? For one year? For a decade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.2.7 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current Research References

Citation 15 is 404 not found and should be removed.
Also the whole 'current research' paragraph looks suspiciously unverified. Since it adds nothing to the article but 'scientists are trying to prove drugs make you creative' (which sounds pretty unscientific to me), I would recommend that this section be removed if no reliable references, or any at all can be found. --Podnick (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)