Isn't frequent LSD usage not good for the heart? Surprised there's nothing mentioned about it.
Neither show long term correlation with lower long term health outcomes (typically the reverse) but with microdosing being more prevalent and science being able to study more of this above ground, I’m hopeful we will have a better answer to this eventually.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DrugNerds/comments/2mqqww/psilocin_... - which has a ton of assumptions in it, but is very forthright with those, is one of the better analyses I’ve seen on this topic, but if there’s more out there I’d love to see it.
The gist that I’ve gathered so far is that for most people, going with a Fadiman-esque approach (2x/week dosing), combined with anecdotal data gathered from researchers conducting surveys, seems to suggest that it’s not egregiously unsafe, at the least. But still certainly worth paying attention to - a big part of the reason I cycle in and out of microdosing - it’s too helpful for depression, anxiety and disconnection to abandon completely, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
From Wikipedia:
> Due to its potency and much lower cost than so-called classical or traditional psychedelics, 25I-NBOMe blotters are sometimes misrepresented as, or mistaken for, LSD blotters.[17] Even small quantities of 25I-NBOMe can produce a large number of blotters. Vendors would import 25I-NBOMe in bulk (E.G 1 kilogram containers) and resell individual doses for a considerable profit
---
On the other hand, what do we mean by frequent here? You develop tolerance quite rapidly to LSD. DMT on the other hand, no tolerance whatsoever, nor cross-tolerance. It is fascinating, in my opinion.
I say this as a huge proponent of psychedelic research and use, but with the qualification that very few things are universally safe for all, so we really should be as open as possible to studying not only the benefits, but also concerns, that come with psychedelic usage.
> A more serious issue concerns other receptors that LSD activates. In particular, LSD is a potent activator of the serotonin 5-HT2B receptor. Activation of that receptor stimulates growth of cardiac ventricular and valve tissue.
You might want to be less aggressive when asking for citations in the future. Especially considering this is something you could have found in ~5 mins of googling.
Another minute of googling after your citation might lead to this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086739/
> You might want to be less aggressive when asking for citations in the future
Or perhaps we're providing encouragement by supplying two citations. ;-)
But it might not have been an aggressive intent. It might have been a consequence of anxiety, which I understand can be a consequence of micro-dosing LSD.
Why is it my responsibility to validate someone's vague claim?
Your first sentence — while the subject isn’t hard to research for yourself — was fine as it added to the potential of the conversation by encouraging people to cite sources; your second was unnecessarily combative and I’d argue intended to induce some shame response in the OC, and didn’t bring any benefit to the community at large.
I'd note that I wasn't the only person to note the aggression in your tone; I'm not intending to shame you for your choice of language, but instead to point out that there are at least two people here who cared enough to respond to you and let you know that it seemed overly aggressive, and that perhaps there are better rhetorical techniques to achieve the same end.
I'm sure others found your tone perfectly reasonable, but I can only voice my own view of how it came across, and how it seemed harmful, not conducive to, open discussion.
The idea is we're helping each other search the state space of the world for what's true.
After all, getting someone to always convince you of things that are true is a really high bar. That means that person is effectively a coach or tutor to you. Usually you have to pay someone to do that.
This method allows us to exchange small messages that hint at information in a certain direction.
I say this as someone who has two tabs of LSD in my fridge left and about 100 g of shrooms so you know I'm not an anti-entheogen dude.
IIRC (I haven't done LSD since 1987, although I used it quite a bit before then), it's not so much that LSD has an impact on the heart, it's the speed (methamphetamine) that's often added to LSD that can negatively impact heart function.
In fact, I don't recall any issues with tachycardia when using "clean" LSD, while that wasn't unusual on LSD with speed.
I'd add that negative interactions while under the influence of LSD (i.e., 'bad' trip) can certainly cause some tachycardia, as that circumstance can cause anxiety and fear.
However, as long as one remains in a supportive, positive atmosphere, that's generally not an issue.
I did a cursory look around and found this study[0] from July 2020 which did mention tachycardia in passing, but notes that:
"LSD use can lead to hypothermia, piloerection, tachycardia with palpitation, an elevation of blood pressure, and hyperglycemia.
The autonomic reactions listed above are not as significant as the mental and behavioral effects of LSD on the body."
However, it's not clear whether those responses were observed or self-reported. This is important since, as I mentioned, LSD is often (by those vending it, rather than end users) "enhanced" with methamphetamine and it's also unclear whether or not such responses are limited to 'bad trips' or not.
All that said, my experience is (obviously) anecdotal.
If there are other studies (sadly, since LSD is a Schedule 1[1] substance, studying its effects is rare, at least in the US) with more direct observations, I'd love to see them.
You can't add any significant amount of meth to a blotter, it's just too small, so this is not true. Also, speed is amphetamines but usually not methampthetamine.
Maybe you are thinking of cases where other psychedelics are sold as LSD and which can sometimes be stuff like DOx which is technically amphetamine but quite far from speed?