• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

LSD: Acid tests

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
June 23, 2011 - The Economist

LSD: Acid tests
Research into hallucinogenic drugs begins to shake off decades of taboo

20110625_stp002.jpg
THE psychedelic era of the 1960s is remembered for its music, its art and, of course, its drugs. Its science is somewhat further down the list. But before the rise of the counterculture, researchers had been studying LSD as a treatment for everything from alcoholism to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), with promising results.

Timothy Leary, a psychologist at Harvard University, was one of the best-known workers in the field, but it was also he who was widely blamed for discrediting it, by his unconventional research methods and his lax handling of drugs. Now, the details of Leary’s research will be made public, with the recent purchase of his papers by the New York Public Library. These papers will be interesting not only culturally, but also scientifically, as they reflect what happened between the early medical promise of hallucinogens and their subsequent blacklisting by authorities around the world.

American researchers began experimenting with LSD in 1949, at first using it to simulate mental illness. Once its psychedelic effects were realised, they then tried it in psychotherapy and as a treatment for alcoholism, for which it became known at the time as a miracle cure.

By 1965 over 1,000 papers had been published describing positive results for LSD therapy. It, and its close chemical relative psilocybin, isolated from hallucinogenic mushrooms, were reported as having potential for treating anxiety disorders, OCD, depression, bereavement and even sexual dysfunction. Unfortunately, most of the studies that came to these conclusions were flawed: many results were anecdotal, and control groups were not established to take account of the placebo effect.

Still, the field was ripe for further study. But alongside growing public fear of LSD, Leary’s leadership had become a liability. He was seen less and less as a disinterested researcher, and more and more as a propagandist. In 1962, amid wide publicity, the Harvard Psilocybin Project was shut down. Leary took his research to an estate in upstate New York, where he also hosted a stream of drug parties. Eventually both LSD and psilocybin were proscribed.

Which was a pity because, like many other drugs the authorities have taken against as a result of their recreational uses, hallucinogens have medical applications as well. But time heals all wounds and now, cautiously, study of the medical use of hallucinogens is returning.

Psilocybin has shown promise in treating forms of OCD that are resistant to other therapies, in relieving cluster headaches (a common form of chronic headache) and in alleviating the anxiety experienced by terminally ill cancer patients. The first clinical study of LSD in over 35 years, also on terminally ill patients, is expected to finish this summer. Peter Gasser, the Swiss doctor leading the experiment, says that a combination of LSD and psychotherapy reduced anxiety levels of all 12 participants in the study, though the statistical significance of the data has yet to be analysed.

Research into LSD is not confined to medicine. Franz Vollenweider, of the Heffter Research Institute in Zurich, for example, is scanning people’s brains to try to understand how hallucinogenic drugs cause changes in consciousness.

And biotechnology may lead to a new generation of hallucinogenic drugs. Edwin Wintermute and his colleagues at Harvard have engineered yeast cells to carry out two of six steps in the pathway needed to make lysergic acid, the precursor of LSD. They hope to add the other four shortly. Once the pathway has been created, it can be tweaked. That might result in LSD-like drugs that are better than the original.

Even if that does not happen, making lysergic acid in yeast is still a good idea. The chemical is used as the starting point for other drugs, including nicergoline, a treatment for senile dementia. The current process for manufacturing it is a rather messy one involving ergot, a parasite of rye.

It may, of course, be that LSD has no clinical uses. Even when no stigma attaches to the drugs involved, most clinical trials end in failure. But it is worth seeing whether LSD might fulfil its early promise. And if the publication of Leary’s archive speeds that process up by exorcising a ghost that still haunts LSD research, then the New York Public Library will have done the world a service.

Related post: New York Public Library Buys Timothy Leary’s Papers
 
LSD did not help with my OCD or my husbands nor my anxious nature.

I love the thought process and spin of this paper but to me it is not realistic.

I personally think they developed LSD to open up the gateways to enhance the Psychic Footsoldiers of that error (the Men Who Stare at Goats).
 
What's with all the drug talk?
The only drugs I take are coffee and the occasional over-the-counter pain med.

Call me a square if you will.
 
For some odd reason I have made a connection between this thread and the "stick walker" thread(s) and wonder if a camera can hallucinate. (what was in that coffee?)
 
We no longer live in the good ole days when people got "high" instead of "all F'd up". Now, largely because of criminalization, we have really bad criminals, gang wars, assasinations and a whole host of nasty stuff that needs to be cleaned up. It just isn't right to contribute to that problem for the sake of our own habit or pleasure ... even if the war on drugs isn't right. By continuing to do drugs, users perpetuate support for both sides and both wrongs.

In my view, the responsible thing to do would be to flat-out quit and put them all out of business. Then work to legalize and regulate it. We as mature adults could then say we have earned the right and the responsibility that comes with using and enjoying these substances. But tell me, how likely is that to happen? How many drug users are willing to put their duty to social responsibility above getting there next fix? People are inherently selfish and hooked on instant gratification ... that is why it is more important than ever for those who have the self discipline and moral conviction to boycott recreational drugs.

Again, this is not to support continued criminalization, rather it is an important step in gaining legal rights and control that would result in better products, less missuse and a wealth of employment and legitimate business opportunities, not to mention the enlightenment and inspiration that I agree can come from the responsible use of quality products.

j.r.

 
I've been high all my life off of my internally-produced narcotics. And look how I turned out!
Problem is people yammer about drugs when 99% of them time they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. It becomes a downright tragedy when real numbskulls like Nixon and Reagen get to decide what chemicals are 'pharmaceutically-appropriate' for the world.
Nicotine, alcohol, caffeine; all cool. American companies are making lots of money from those drugs, so they gotta be good for you.
Marijuana? Why anybody can grow that. How we gonna make money on that? That's gotta be a bad drug.
LSD? That's not even a word; it's got no vowels in it. That's gotta be an evil drug, something the commies probably came up with.

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

What's with all the drug talk?
The only drugs I take are coffee and the occasional over-the-counter pain med.

Call me a square if you will.
You live in Montreal and never smoked hash? Wow, you are square.
 
I've been high all my life off of my internally-produced narcotics. And look how I turned out!
Problem is people yammer about drugs when 99% of them time they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. It becomes a downright tragedy when real numbskulls like Nixon and Reagen get to decide what chemicals are 'pharmaceutically-appropriate' for the world.
Nicotine, alcohol, caffeine; all cool. American companies are making lots of money from those drugs, so they gotta be good for you.
Marijuana? Why anybody can grow that. How we gonna make money on that? That's gotta be a bad drug.
LSD? That's not even a word; it's got no vowels in it. That's gotta be an evil drug, something the commies probably came up with.

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------


You live in Montreal and never smoked hash? Wow, you are square.

I wouldn't even know where to get some.
 
I've been high all my life off of my internally-produced narcotics. And look how I turned out!
Problem is people yammer about drugs when 99% of them time they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. It becomes a downright tragedy when real numbskulls like Nixon and Reagen get to decide what chemicals are 'pharmaceutically-appropriate' for the world.
Nicotine, alcohol, caffeine; all cool. American companies are making lots of money from those drugs, so they gotta be good for you.
Marijuana? Why anybody can grow that. How we gonna make money on that? That's gotta be a bad drug.
LSD? That's not even a word; it's got no vowels in it. That's gotta be an evil drug, something the commies probably came up with.
Drugs are ok. They are in fact neutral. Some of the drugs you have mentioned are helpful for some people, especially the sick. Marijuana being used, legally, for chemo patients , glaucoma sufferers etc. The real problem is humans. Humans are abusers of drugs. They then become the ones with problems or cause problems. And that's not to say that every person who uses theses drugs has a problem or are abusers either. Although some of them don't even know they have a problem. If humans could be trusted to use these drugs in moderation then everything would be cool. It's the one's who think that a little bit is good but more is better are the ones who give drugs a bad name.
 
Drugs are a super complex issue.
Each situation is different.
Drugs can certainly lead to instability and personality changes when used in excess. As someone married to an alcoholic... i have been adversely affected by drugs. And could easily live without this drug.
As with all good (or bad) teenagers, drug experimentation was a part of my past.... and some of them were hard drugs, but i had a death wish.. so of course i would walk that line.
There was a guy in Tallahassee who just walked around town in a daze.. he literally blew his mind with LSD use. Now.. as an adult, i can see the danger and harm drugs can do... and i prefer to NOT use them recreationaly, as much as possible, however, if having the chance to use them for psi or spiritual means.. i could do that.... but i would much rather learn to have the altered states outside of drug use. All i can say is, if you use them, don't take it for granted.. not even pot, which i think is much better then alcohol. If you have to use them to take away pain, fear, anxiety... then that needs to be analyzed, confronted and dealt with. And that is the problem with drugs, people often use them to manage emotional issues, often without understanding that is what is happening.
 
Drugs are a super complex issue.
Each situation is different.
Yes, they are. That's because each drug is a different chemical. Each chemical acts on you differently. Most people lump them all together because it's the easiest thing to do and, as I've stated, they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. Especially if they have not experienced the particular drug's effects. They generally use stupid analogies like 'I don't have to jump off a cliff to know what it feels like.' Yes, I claim that is a very stupid and pointless analogy and I hope somebody doesn't ask me why.
However, I think things are getting better re drug (the illegal kind) information and knowledge. At least people, in general, are no longer automatically swallowing the misinformation and hysterical thinking that passed for drug knowledge in previous generations. It has required those half-witted lunkheads to die out (maybe while coughing their lungs out from smoking); but it has changed for the better.
I am not a proponent for drug use, far from it. But mankind has clearly demonstrated his inability to stay away from intoxicants. You cannot just say no. It does not work that way and no amount of wishful thinking will make it. Most people that use intoxicants are self-medicating for some sort of pain or ailment; physical or psychological.
There is something innate, it seems, across higher mammals at least, to be attracted to intoxicants. Elephants love alcohol. Many will consume it from fermented fruits every chance they get; enough to get them drunk. Rats and just about any other mammal will voluntarily drink bitter morphine-water instead of regular water, just for the effects of morphine.
Remember the saying "A poison is too much of anything". This applies to water, air, salt, sand, heroin. Except maybe THC (from marijuana). They never were able to sucessfully kill any rats with an overdose of THC, at least not without administering over half the body weight of the animal. Nope, all the rats recovered from 'THC poisoning'.

---------- Post added at 09:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 AM ----------

I wouldn't even know where to get some.
Try downtown. East end. Listen for the shady characters with shoulder-length hair whispering "Hshh" as you pass by. Haitians loitering outside the metro station are a good clue.
 
I hope you don't think i'm judging.. rather cautioning.
We all have to do what we have to do to survive.
 
I hope you don't think i'm judging.. rather cautioning.
We all have to do what we have to do to survive.
What? No. You don't have to convince me of the harm alcohol has caused. My point is base your decisions on real information, not propaganda coming from self-interest groups. Ideally, no one would use intoxicants because they would not need to. The fact so many people feel a need to, along with the huge numbers of quiet suicides nobody seems to want to talk about, probably says more about conditions in our ('western') society than anything about drugs.
 
"Just Say No" is simplistic nonsense fantasizing a kind of world that never was.

Years ago, a Canadian relative of mine offered the opinion that Americans are generally paranoid about drugs. I disagreed with him at the time. But honestly, I have since changed my mind. I think the War On Drugs is like collectively shooting ourselves in the foot.
 
I'm a born rebel.. i question everything. And your right, there is tons of propaganda out there. Our western society is very abusive. :( Most people don't see this.
 
Try downtown. East end. Listen for the shady characters with shoulder-length hair whispering "Hshh" as you pass by. Haitians loitering outside the metro station are a good clue.

I'm not looking to get high. I have a child to take care of.
If one likes to get high every once in awhile, that's cool. I know of plenty of successful people that do that.
If someone is high most of the time and is using "harder" drugs, well yeah, I'm judging you. In my eyes, you could be doing something better with your life.
 
Back
Top