While this is a really interesting article, there may be some issues around the "placebo effect" of taking a microdose vs physical effects of the microdose. (Granted, the impact of "having more creative moments" may be the same either way, which could be a win in itself)
https://www.gwern.net/LSD%20microdosing this article was posted on HN a few years back, and talks about an self-administered blind study of microdosing, which found limited benefits of microdosing, counter to most anecdotal examples.
One thing that was surprising when I read that article was that a major academic source on LSD microdosing, Fadiman, is not aware of any blinded experiments on LSD microdosing.
On the negative comments about Gwern's experiment, which failed to demonstrate any positive results, Gwern writes:
> The comments on my LSD microdosing experiment bring this out in dramatic relief: everyone is eager to find some flaw, no matter how improbable, which will let them dismiss the results completely and not update in the slightest bit. Will any of them do a better experiment to improve the claimed fatal flaw? Hell no! I can’t even except Fadiman here. While he didn’t give me any of the bullshit a lot of people did, I asked him before I posted it whether he or anyone else had attempted to replicate my experiment. No one had. To emphasize that: Fadiman is a trained psychologist who appreciates the need for systematic data collection + randomization + blinding with easy access to LSD who is keenly interested in microdosing inasmuch as he has done microdosing for decades while publicly professing its value, who understands & admires my procedure and has had at least half a year to replicate my experiment himself - and has not done so!
You wouldn't think there could possibly be a placebo effect for lsd, but if you've ever bought fake acid, it can take a surprisingly long amount of time to realize that nothing is going to happen, and you can trick yourself into thinking things feel a little bit trippy. If you aren't expecting much of an effect to begin with, I can totally see it.
Even with real acid, I always feel like I'm coming up way before the actual effects start to hit. It doesn't help that I usually smoke pot and maybe drink during that time.
> Once Project MKUltra officially got underway in April 1953, experiments included administering LSD to mental patients, prisoners, drug addicts and prostitutes—"people who could not fight back," as one agency officer put it. In one case LSD was administered to a mental patient in Kentucky for 174 days. LSD was also administered to CIA employees, military personnel, doctors, other government agents, and members of the general public in order to study their reactions. LSD and other drugs were usually administered without the subject's knowledge or informed consent, a violation of the Nuremberg Code that the U.S. agreed to follow after World War II. The aim of this was to find drugs which would irresistibly bring out deep confessions or wipe a subject's mind clean and program him or her as "a robot agent.
I can't even imagine what it would be like to be administered a hallucinogen surreptitiously in a age where zero recreational use of said hallucinogens gave literally no one a chance to be prepared to explain what the hell was going on in their brains.
I'm reasonably certain that if someone slipped me something now, thanks to youthful experimentation I'd at least catch on to what was going on pretty quickly, but I can't imagine experiencing that with literally no frame of reference.
Consider non-drug-related psychosis. It happens to people (young people) all the time, and they're in exactly the position you refer to: no way to describe it or to perform reality tests.
Well, first of all, you need to somehow administer the LSD dose. From a tactical perspective, the coffee makes sense.
Second of all LSD, has a bit of a stimulant "excitable" effect. So you might want to give them Decaf to compensate. You're right that it's a confounding variable though, and there's a good chance that people like me would be less productive because of the decaf, especially if the LSD dose was too small. https://erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_effects.shtml
The variable is just the lsd. Caffeine is constant in both control and experimental groups. Plus the organisms would most likely exhibit caffeine seeking behavior anyhow.
Cocaine seems more likely to me. Meth is certainly gaining some popularity (particularly on the west coast), but cocaine is most definitely the goto asshole-bro drug
Do you have a citation for "probably"? If not, then it's just "might".
One of the LSD effects is an increase of production of dopamine in the brain. From this perspective alone, the microdosing might be on par with Ritalin, Nicotine, or Caffeine.
I was trying microdosing before I had diagnosis of adhd, and I feel that LSD works way nicer than Ritalin, and kind of comparable to Modafinil, in my case. Long term acid microdosing effects aren't well tested, so I wouldn't do it regularily, but still - it seems to work.
The debate now, is if it even has a (non placebo) effect. I am sure if it is good or bad in the context of getting things done will be quite subjective.
True Ginger Beer, which is fermented using a SCOBY (similar to kombucha), contains a little bit of alcohol. But mass produced things like Ginger Ale don't...
Yup, true ginger beer can only be made with a symbiotic yeast/bacteria combo. Apperently needs to be harvested from the roots of certain trees. Quite interesting stuff
The syrup may have trace amounts of alcohol in it due to the manufacturing process. I'm not sure about Canada Dry specifically, but Coke and Pepsi syrup do:
My thoughts exactly - in this case given the location I'd imagine they were being defensive about NYU students' underage "drinking", but good lord the quantities required to get drunk (or hell, even a tiny bit buzzed) on kombucha boggle the mind.
The point of science is to prove things and refine them correctly; this hacker news comment is not conclusive proof that some small amount of alcohol is a net positive, let alone microdosing LSD. Contrary to your very clear positive statement, microdosing is totally unknown if it works at all.
These systems are incredibly complicated to prove anything in and we are so much more suggestible than we feel we are.
We can't even agree on what LSD should be increasing with microdosing, is it IQ, coding ability or concentration?
Hey, I don't have any real evidence to add, but I would often read articles about LSD microdosing and assumed it was bullshit.
After trying it on myself 5-10ug / day for 6+ months, I think it's been incredibly beneficial.
The crux of it is that if you drop a full tab and pay attention, you'll notice LSD is extremely stimulating - far more than psilocybin. It has a very high level of dopamine receptor activation, which is why even 10 hours into a trip I would notice how different the quality of my attention was - in essence, it was far easier to simply be aware of what was going on.
(Note I have adhd-pi so that's part of why I think microdosing works for me)
In short, a microdose gives the dopaminergic stimulatory benefits, without being overwhelmingly twitchy. It produces a less linear style of thinking than amphetamines (adderall/vyvanse/desoxyn), but still increases general energy, focus, quality of attention etc. Colors feel a tiny bit sharper, visual acuity feels slightly enhanced, physical body control is significantly enhanced (I have far better posture and general neuromuscular control).
Obviously this isn't rigorous evidence, but hopefully it gives a general idea of why one would microdose.
One final thing - 25ug or even 15ug is far too much. IMO 10ug is the upper limit of what would be considered a microdose. My preference is 4-8 ug (obviously dosed as liquid)
I believe that none of those effects are inherently part of alcohol, but the social context.
It would be interesting if there were a study where bartenders were in some way blinded, perhaps needing to use specific bottles of mix for specific subjects. Some subjects in a group would be actors, intentionally /playing/ drunk, while others in the group would be real participants. In all cases subjects in the groups would be instructed to act as if the drinks were really alcohol, irrespective of if they were or not.
It's been done. People not drinking do act a bit like people drinking. But any person that had a lot of sex will tell you that alcohol makes the one night stand easier. Just like you know an ben & jerry only diet will make you fat. You don't really need a deep scientific study for things that are very, very obvious.
A lot of people are ok with health loss if they can get laid. The balance is in the eye of the person paying the price, as there is no objective way of measuring it.
Less than one UK unit per day, with some days per week alcohol free. One unit is 10 ml of pure alcohol. Alcohol in the UK is sold with the percentage of alcohol by volume (ABV) listed. To find the units you multiply the serving size in litres by the ABV.
In the UK that's seen as "very low". Other countries have different cultures around alcohol.
> In 2015 in England, 55% of men said that they had drunk in the last year and that their average weekly alcohol consumption was no more than 14 units.
> 64% of women in England said that they had drunk in the last year and that their average weekly intake was no more than 14 units.
> In 2015, 11% of men and 7% of women in England said that their average weekly alcohol consumption was more than 14 units but no more than 21 units.
> In 2015 in England, 12% of men and 6% of women said that their average weekly alcohol consumption was more than 21 units but no more than 35 units.
> In 2015, 4% of men and 2% of women in England said that their average weekly alcohol consumption was more than 35 units but no more than 50 units.
This is important because there has been some publicity recently saying a drink a day is safe (mostly debunked now), or newspaper reports of the "benefits of red wine".
Here's one example of poor reporting: While we shouldn't increase the amount of pressure that pregnant women face (because they're already under considerable pressure) it's wrong to tell them that drinking wine daily is safe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6078575#6079665
One of the most dramatically psychoactive chemicals known to mankind, so naturally the top comment on HN is the placebo one. Which is always the top comment about things that are thought to have real effects.
This is about microdosing. I don't think anyone here would claim that LSD has no effect - that'd be crazy. But that does not mean we can say whether or not microdosing achieves anything. Especially not in the face of experiments like Gwerns.
Parent commenter here - I don't doubt that LSD has real effects. I think it's plausible that microdosing has real effects. But I also think that said effects are difficult to measure, because studies typically use subjective mood assessments, which are going to be pretty heavily impacted by the placebo effect.
But even if most of microdosing is just a placebo effect, I think that's still amazing in itself. Even if you're not "physically tripping", you've willed yourself into a "more open" mental state, creating your own positive side effects.
Well, yes and no.
Its true once you get beyond about 12C potency on the centesimal or "C scale", there may not be a molecule of the original substance left.
However lower potencies, specially in the decimal scale definitely have enough of the original remedy in them as to qualify as a microdose. If you start with a gram, then a 6x potentization will result in about a 1 micro-gram dose, which is about the same as being discussed in this article. And a lot of homeopathic remedies are administered at the 3x or 6x potency as well.
Well, not exactly, in the sense that many homeopathic preparations don't even contain any molecules of the substances they supposedly 'remember'[1] while the studies being discussed in the article are using doses of LSD about 1/10th what a typical full-strength dose might be.
Searching for a relief from menstrual pain was what made Albert Hofmann research Secale cornutum and accidentally discovering LSD in the process (or how he put it "being discovered by LSD").
> Interesting tidbit at the end of the article about LSD microdosing reportedly fixing twelve female subjects' irregular/painful menstrual cycles.
Thanks for commenting this - I would've skipped the article otherwise. Conventional medicine doesn't have any good options for women with such problems. Two of my passengers going take home from the emergency room were monthly sufferers of dysmenorrhea. One was "economically stressed", the other was on drugs (edit: prescriptions) that never allowed her cycles to normalize themselves.
Edit2: another was made suicidal with Depo-Provera...
I've started drafting 'the predicaments of doctors and patients', where I have something to say about the medical industry. Maybe I'd be able to finish it if I got some microdose LSD, lol.
Fadiman reads an email from a British art historian in
her 20s, long afflicted with painful, irregular
menstruation. “‘I only microdosed that one month. My
periods are regular. You have changed my life. Thank
you.’ I’ve been in psychedelic research a long, long
time, and no one’s ever considered or mentioned or
thought about the possibility that psychedelics had
anything do with menstrual periods, particularly
difficult ones. However, now that that bit of search
has happened, we started looking for it.” Twelve women,
he says, have reported improved menstruation after
microdosing.
It makes sense in a roundabout way. LSD was first synthesized as part of a study of ergotamine analogues. Ergotamine [1] is still used to decrease uterine bleeding after childbirth (but use has largely been replaced by a superior analogue).
So this kind of article is excellent and I really am excited about how entheogen can potentially heal productivity to depression.
I have been very interested in this concept and approach as I know several people who could benefit from this - myself included.
Psychedelics are tools and are not to be taken lightly. As much as an advocate as I am for them I also agree that they're not for everyone.
Finally being able to have access to testing and experimentation we may discover even more capabilities.
However, what drives me crazy is how are we supposed to get the medicine? Especially in the case of LSD I am concerned of purity and risk of finding it.
It's a lot different now than it was in the 80's - at least here in the midwest. We no longer have the Grateful Dead and/or "family" providing clean sources. To make matters worse it's most likely the > 40 year olds crowd who would be interested in this but who is going to sell a 'mom or dad looking person' a hit of acid? Hanging out in the concert lot isn't what it used to be ;-).
Perhaps in places like Marin County there still is some availability. I hope so and I hope it once agains paints it's way across the country/world.
> However, what drives me crazy is how are we supposed to get the medicine?
It might be too soon to call this "medicine," a word with certain emotional associations. The article includes many interesting and intriguing anecdotes, but to date the described effects haven't been examined in a properly designed double-blind study (a study with two or more groups and no practical way for the subjects or experimenters to know which group is which[1]).
We must all remember that the placebo effect is particularly persuasive -- some would say confounding -- in the evaluation of mental states.
On the other hand, the so-called "war on drugs" has made it difficult to study these substances without legal entanglements, a factor that by itself may have held back legitimate research for decades.
"It might be too soon to call this "medicine," a word with certain emotional associations. The article includes many interesting and intriguing anecdotes, but to date the described effects haven't been examined in a properly designed double-blind study"
The history of medicine is full of examples of treatments being tested in the clinic long before any double-blind tests are made. Things like the first use of anesthetic spring to mind. If they had waited for double-blind studies that would have satisfied modern science, millions of people would have suffered for another hundred years without it.
The practice of testing treatments in the clinic continues to this day, with doctors prescribing medicines for off-label uses, and with even psychedelics being used in psychedelic therapy by psychologists brave enough to risk their careers and freedom to help people.
Ideally there would be double-blind studies on everything, but those studies cost an enormous amount of money, and in the case of psychedelics have to overcome enormous political hurdles. The cost rises astronomically when we're talking about large, statistically significant double-blind studies.
Furthermore, since a lot of psychedelics, like mushrooms and peyote, can be ingested directly from plants, and many others like LSD have long been out of patent protection, most pharmaceutical companies (which are usually the only ones with pockets deep enough to fund these kinds of studies) aren't interested, as they won't make a profit on something so easily available from other sources than themselves. That's not to mention the political hot potato of psychedelic research as a whole, which is still regarded with suspicion by much of the medical and political establishment.
Politics is a strange bird, and it's really hard to predict the future. Much of the drug policy in the US is not based on science or medicine, and the US government has repeatedly ignored the advice of prestigious scientific and medical bodies and panels to soften its anti-drug stance, reschedule drugs, and treat drug addiction as a medical issue rather than a legal one.
In the meantime, some states have gone ahead and legalized medical marijuana and even recreational marijuana. This was often done by referendum, where voters got to decide, and how voters decided is a complete mystery. Did they take science in to account? Did they care about double-blind trials? Who knows? But considering the massive ignorance of science by the general public, it probably wasn't science that tipped the balance.
I suspect that if wholesale legalization of some currently illegal drugs does come, it will have little to do with science, and more to do with public perception change, and the dying off of old, rabidly anti-drug legalization opponents from another generation.
All true, a high-quality comment. It's true about marijuana, and it may eventually be true about some other drugs that turn out to have beneficial uses -- in a process driven mostly by politics and public relations, very little science.
I doubt any classed manufactured drugs would become legal in US unless major (1st tier) drug companies figured out a way to actually make money with them, no matter their potential benefits to consumers. Profit potential has by far the most influence on what flies politically.
> Profit potential has by far the most influence on what flies politically.
Very true in nearly all cases. Marijuana yielded to political pressure without Big Pharma having any easy way to make money from it. That may be the exception proving the rule, which I agree is a strong indicator of expected future events.
Well the hippie lettuce situation is an interesting outlier. Just as much an exception, it's also not in the main workflow of pharma because of the heavy agri origin. But that also means big agri is also probably keeping a close eye on it along the lines of either the delivery method will remain primarily like that of tobacco, or pharma will take a huge chunk of the business selling a synthetic in pill form. Either way, if it turns into big business, I don't see a place for boutique operators. Big agri or pharma will squeeze the the small farmers out somehow. Larger pharmers with thousands of acres might do well with it. Third tier pharma will again be squeezed out unless some investment the magnitude of Berkshire takes an interest.
Another exception is peyote, which is legal to use by members of the Native American Church. Other religious exceptions may be made for other substances, like Ayahuasca. Studies in to the therapeutic potential of psilocibin may eventually lead to enough of a shift in perception of that substance to make it legal for certain limited types of therapy. Then, as was seen with medical marijuana, that may eventually lead to legal "recreational" (ie. non-medical) use.
There could still be a big backlash against all this. I'm holding my breath waiting to see what the Trump administration and their supporters do.
> I'm holding my breath waiting to see what the Trump administration and their supporters do.
As am I. The politically aware could simply point out how expensive the war on drugs is. In fact I have no idea why this isn't raised as an argument against it, and the incarceration at taxpayer expense of so many people for nonviolent offenses.
The answer to my quandary is probably that most conservatives aren't libertarians -- that being conservative doesn't necessarily mean a person wants to stay out of other people's lives and choices or reduce the cost of government.
NBOMe's are! They also have psychadelic effects but are a lot riskier and tend to last longer.
It's a good thing they have a bitter taste, and if your LSD has a bitter/metallic taste: spit! It shouldn't taste like anything and you don't want HPPD.
[REDACTED] has never tasted anything but paper on tabs, but some claim a metallic taste when there is none. The best protocol is to swallow the tab, in which case nbomes will not have an effect (they must be sublingually absorbed). There is little reason to take LSD sublingually although it is quite common among recreational users - which is again silly because if you swallow you can guarantee that nbomes won't affect you
I don't doubt that it is unique for being active at such low levels. But the issue I was mentioning is ensuring that it is indeed real LSD and not some similar drug.
Currently there are variations of LSD that are becoming popular because of their legal stance. LSD is illegal but variations of it may not be - thus in some cases may be being passed off as LSD.
Even when there was lots of LSD around there was always the weird variations that just weren't very clean.
Often "family acid" was rated as the best. But the problem is every Tom, Dick, and Harry would swing their crappy acid as "family acid".
Most often you could determine good acid by the artwork on the print. Such as Alex Gray Jesus blotter, Alice and the Looking Glass, Flying Pyramids, etc.
So my point is - I just hope that what we're hearing as LSD is in fact good clean LSD.
You can't tell good acid by the artwork on the blotter. Anyone could put or copy any artwork they wanted to any garbage or even empty sheets.
The only way to tell with reasonable certainty of what you're getting is to have the product tested, ideally at multiple independent, high quality laboratories. Even then, if you're testing blotter or microdots, you're only going to know about the ones you tested, not about the rest of the batch. Properly shaken/stirred liquid should be better in that if one drop tested fine, the rest should be the same. But even then, if the substance easily separates out in the solution, you can't trust that either.
If anyone with a deeper knowledge of chemistry could speak about the effectiveness of testing, that would be welcome.
LSD should never separate in solution. It should always stay evenly distributed, and liquid is an ideal long term storage form anyway.
For testing, the only effective technique is GC/MS. But there is only one lab [REDACTED] knows of, which is the Spanish lab Energy Control. Unfortunately they are not always competent and often make routine errors in analysis.
"LSD should never separate in solution. It should always stay evenly distributed..."
LSD might not, but some toxins or impurities might, and those are the ones you most want to pick up in your test. So if you test just an unmixed portion, you might miss the impurities that are nonetheless there.
EcstasyData[1], which does the testing for DanceSafe[2], apparently has a DEA license:
"EcstasyData tests ecstasy tablets, powders, research chemicals, new pschoactive substances, and other street drugs through our DEA-licensed laboratory."[3]
You can also buy testing kits[4] for some drugs, like ecstasy, and do the testing yourself.
Looks like there is a test kit for LSD even.[5]
"Ehrlich's Reagent is a solution of hydrochloric acid, ethanol and p–dimethylaminobenzaldehyde. It can be used to positively identify LSD, helping rule out 25i-NBOMe, a highly toxic and extremely dangerous drug that is often misrepresented as LSD. Ehrlich's can also be used to identify other indoles. Contains enough reagent for approximately 50 tests."
I'm not sure if ruling out 25i-NBOMe is enough, though. Could there be other toxic substances that aren't caught by this test?
Still, some testing is much better than no testing.
Reagent tests tests for presence, not purity. They're just a way of ruling out if you for sure don't have the compound you're looking for. However, you will never get any data on purity, and with multiple substances on a tab you will be hard pressed to identify the substances.
A little knowledge goes a long way, however. Tabs can only fit hundreds of micrograms to around a milligram (maybe a few mg's) on a standard sized blotter tab. This narrows down the # of potential active compounds massively. Also, LSD is active when swallowed immediately but nbomes aren't. So for a knowledgeable user it's not hard to avoid nbomes, but you will never be able to find out how much LSD is actually on your tab.
"LSD is active when swallowed immediately but nbomes aren't. So for a knowledgeable user it's not hard to avoid nbomes"
LSD might be pharmacologically active immediately, but not perceptually. It might take a while for the user to be sure they haven't eaten plain paper. Anyway, what is the "knowledgeable user" supposed to do when the substance they've taken isn't active immediately? Spit it out? By then it's too late. I really don't understand how this knowledge is supposed to help you avoid nbomes.
"you will never be able to find out how much LSD is actually on your tab"
Knowing what you're getting is great, but of secondary importance to making sure you're not getting poisoned.
The government should really step in, legalize it, and inspect the manufacturers and require testing, much like what is done in the legal medical industry now, with legal pharmaceuticals.
That process is itself currently far from perfect, and occasionally there are safety scandals even with legal pharmaceuticals, but it's still far better than the situation with illegal drugs now, when users have to seriously worry that their next dose will kill them because of potential toxic impurities that would all likelihood not be there if the drug was legal.
It's really upsetting that the government can stand by and just watch people suffer and die when they could be doing something to prevent it.
Ok, I see that I misread it, but I still don't understand. "active when swallowed immediately"? Immediately after what? I don't get it. Could someone explain that full sentence for me?
The dose for Bromo-DragonFLY is still fortunately too large to fit on a 1/4 x 1/4 inch piece of blotter paper (EDIT: Actually, after looking into this a bit more, I'm not so sure about this statement. I'll defer to someone with more knowledge, but until then take what I've said with a grain of salt.). It sounds like a primitive methodology, but in the absence of a testing kit, this small-sized blotter paper is a pretty sure sign that you have real LSD.
If you are offered larger blotter paper, it is very likely to be one of the NBOMe drugs, which are also not so safe in comparison to LSD.
I think you understand a lot less about this than you believe you do - this is pretty dangerous (tho not as bad as a comment above basing trustworthiness off label artwork)
The dark web solves most of those issues, but comes with a few new ones of its own. That said, I genuinely think it's a viable source if you're in the market.
Amphetamine wins at productivity without contest. It has a linear effect and you can take more. Much better as a therapeutic device.
My experience with LSD microdosing is that I still don't feel like programming, just like I don't with a higher dose. I feel like doing other things. People say "you're taking too much", yet when I try to take less, then I don't feel anything at all.
Very unpredictable. If I get the dose perfect (which might depend more on the state of me rather than the dose), then I'd liken it to a tiny dose of amphetamine -- it comes with the same sort of mental clarity.
If I take a little too much, like within 10ug or something, I'm even more useless at my daily tasks. For 12 hours. This vastly limits the therapy of any of its effects since you can never advance beyond however you feel in microdose space (whatever that is), and you can't take more when you need more power.
Is the dark web so prevalent that everyone in SF has their own sheet? My experience with proponents of microdosing in person is that they tried it a few times but never actually owned their own supply to experiment with.
My ultimate opinion is to reserve my acid for when I want to take a 1/4+ tab on the beach to enhance an experience, and to reserve amphetamine for productivity.
Bonus: amphetamine tolerance seems to change acid a bit for the worse, but I'm not sure how much of that is superstition which is too easy to accumulate around acid, which is why it's hard to evaluate microdosing.
The differences are subtle with small dosages, and there might be a substantial placebo effect.
But as a personal summary, LSD makes me smile and I feel like a better person. On it, I find myself preferring good life choices and productivity. Amphetamine gives me endless focus and nervousness-flavored mental energy, similar to too much coffee. As a bonus: Modafinil makes me almost angrily opposed to distraction and slacking off.
For me the effects aren't too related. Amphetamines provide focus and energy. LSD makes my mind extremely porous, so that information just goes in and I don't have to expend any effort to learn complicated things. So I don't actually do active work on LSD, I just read, and experience reading comprehension on a level I don't know how to achieve any other way. It's the closest thing I can get to "download this book into my mind" a la The Matrix.
Like the other reply said, amphetamines give you the nervous, high focus, zeroed-in feeling. Great for cranking out a ton of code if you write a to-do list beforehand, otherwise I get lost in trivial, pixel-perfect design stuff. An LSD microdose is a much more relaxed high, tons of mental energy but less focused (which is a good thing, compared to amphetamines). Especially for creative work or higher-level/algorithmic programming.
I can usually get the same effect mixing a clear sativa and a low dose of amphetamine. Good for writing, designing, coding for long hours without that tingle of builtup stress behind the curtains.
LSD is less linear. Increased focus, energy, visual acuity, but you won't get stuck organizing all your documents for the 12th time like on amphetamines.
I actually take both substances together, and find that the synergy is superior to either one by themselves. But it takes real commitment to have such a dosing protocol because most "normal" individuals do not/would not understand it
In a good environment and state of mind good clean acid can freak you out initially but after you peak you have this longer period of a zen like state where it seems you have endless energy and concentration.
That is why I'm interested in microdoses because if it can reproduce that zen period vs. the initial freak out period then it could potentially be very beneficial.
For a day when I'm working, I consider microdosing LSD if:
- It's going to be a somewhat creative/self-directed day
- Not likely to be a stressful day or a packed schedule
While microdosing my brain will wander a bit more than usual in different directions, which is good under low stress but not helpful under high stress. It can help me focus on work tasks enormously, but doesn't bring me the same rapid-paced obsessive productivity mindset as adderall would.
If I'm working and I know it's going to be a crazy day where I need to get 10 things done and can't afford to procrastinate or be otherwise distracted, I'd prefer adderall because it's more predictable in its effects on my focus.
If I'm not working, I don't consider taking adderall at all (unless I need to be awake for something like an overnight drive).
People should consider modafinil as well in cycling through different types of stimulants, I find it to have less of a physical effect compared to lsd or amphetamines.
While it seems interesting, I have no idea how one gets a trustworthy supply of such micro doses, not to mention that fact that LSD is a schedule 1 drug. Caffeine seems much easier to obtain.
Aside from subjecting the source tabs to the 'acid test', as it were, you would use some lab testing to verify a purchase such as on the DNMs. EnergyControl if you're in the US, possibly some of the national testing programs if you're in the EU. (EnergyControl was not available when I ran my self-experiment.) Another possibility for quality control is moving to the gray market: the analogue 1P-LSD is available from RC vendors and currently is minimally prosecuted, although it's so chemically similar to LSD that it'll probably happen eventually; to the extent that you trust legal sellers more than illegal ones for purity, 1P-LSD would be an improvement. Or you could do both, why not.
Avoiding a drug because of it's scheduled status makes a lot of sense, and because of what it might be cut with, but I am not sure why someone, or how someone would cut LSD with fentanyl given how small I thought the effective dose of LSD is comparatively and how different the effects are.
Without gc/ms you just don't know what's in your tab/liquid/etc. That being said iirc it takes milligrams to OD on fent which means you'd be pretty safe with tabs. Liquid is another story.
[REDACTED] acquired LSD tartrate, made solution w/ everclear, and then diluted it such that one sip is roughly 4-8ug based on volume. That's the only real way to microdose yourself, although you could cut a tab into 20 pieces (depends on the lay but a skilled lay is evenly distributed. An unskilled lay will have massive hotspots and thus one would need to dissolve the tab in a solvent or cut it into n->infty pieces)
I knew a group of people 20 years ago who would take tiny doses of LSD in order to maintain decisionmaking skills before going out for a night of drinking. Most of these were people who didn't even like LSD, they just liked drinking.
That's a super interesting episode. Thanks for posting it.
It's definitely important to hear as many perspectives on this as possible, and not to look at LSD or any other drug through rose-colored glasses.
With traditional doses, everyone agrees that set (mindset, or where you are mentally) and setting (where you are physically, and how the space around you is) play huge roles in what kind of experience you have. I wonder if the same is the case for LSD microdosing. Some people just might be unprepared for such an experience, and even at sub-threshold doses LSD might be exposing things they're not ready to handle on their own.
At one point, they say:
"I feel like I at least had a point where I was like, PJ, just do it, it’ll be fun. And I think that that’s an irresponsible approach to a really strong drug."
I would agree with that. These substances should be treated with the utmost respect, and maybe the way most microdosers casually use LSD is not respectful enough of its power and life-changing potential.
It's one of the only dissenting anecdotes I've heard. Everyone everywhere is raving about it ("drug fad du jour" from the article) but Reply All participants both came away with negative and ambivalent opinions.
"Feel" seems like the key word here. Unsure how much of this is the placebo effect at work or just simple recursive autosuggestion (you expect to be more sharp and so you are constantly checking for that sharpness and therefore find that feeling validated)
Well the article does say that the researchers controlled for these things by using a placebo.
There was a study done last year that scanned the brains of volunteers, some given a placebo, and some given LSD, and the results were enough to convince me that this is a topic worthy of more research.
>Well the article does say that the researchers controlled for these things by using a placebo.
Not quite. If you look at that study, it was for hallucinogenic doses of LSD, not microdosing. Also, they didn't look at mental clarity/sharpness or anything similar.
Worth being aware that "In the United Kingdom, LSD is a Schedule 1 Class 'A' drug. This means it has no recognized legitimate uses and possession of the drug without a license is punishable with 7 years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine, and trafficking is punishable with life imprisonment and an unlimited fine."
one thing not mentioned here but hinted at is tolerance -
The 4 day window between doses hinted at is pretty much required in order to have anywhere near the same effect with the same quantity so doing this in a regular way is more like 'regular chemical therapy' a couple times a week than a 'morning pick me up' like cofee
not sure how tolerance builds over the long run - so could be wrong here if it actually plateus; that said probably not the best idea to be on LSD every single day if even in small doses..
I've done it 30 days in a row once. Tolerance is really quite negligible at these doses. However you do definitely notice full +50ug trips between for about 1-2 days afterwards.
Also, tolerance is maybe the wrong word as it suggests that all effects are diminished. With psychedelics, pretty much all of them except DMT when microdosing, it seems more like this for continous microdosing without days off:
Day 3-4: Loss of the psychedelic "touch" in thought and perception, including associated creativity and easier ability to psychedelic thinking, now feels more like a stimulant without associated amphetamine bodyload
Day 5-6: Slight loss of clarity
Day 8-9: Further loss of clarity and beginning loss of energy and stimulation
Day 12-13: Sober state becomes indistinguishable from microdose - true tolerance sets in
Back in my carefree youth, I often took LSD multiple times a week. I never noticed any sort of "tolerance"... tripping was tripping. Of course, not microdosing, and not daily, but it doesn't feel like a "tolerance" drug, really, the way, say, opiates are a tolerance drug.
Is this comparable to achieving a similar effect with caffeine?
I know whenever I get into the office, I don't feel nearly as productive or good at solving problems as I do whenever I drink an energy drink or a coffee. Strictly anecdotal, of course, but still. Lots of talk about placebo.
Caffeine is much more similar to Amphetamines–which actually aren't that dissimilar, chemically. That includes wakefulness and positive mood, but also nervousness, rapid heartbeat, irritability etc. Ever worked through a night drinking energy drinks (the sugar helps) and been wide awake the next day? That's how amphetamines feel.
LSD is actually a much more relaxed experience. It's like working on something you really enjoy, on a sunny afternoon with no deadlines in sight, listening to jazz and sipping an iced cappuccino.
After a certain point and I imagine any adult is years/decades past this, all you're doing is chasing away the withdrawal by taking caffeine. You're quite literally addicted to it.
I've been on/off it several times and now only drink green tea so I have a bit of experience here. I think ultimately it does nothing once I have a certain amount of tolerance. Worse, I do know it hurts my sleep quality significantly if taken anytime other than the morning or if too much is taken any time during the day. Sleep quality seems to be the elephant in the room for many white collar professionals, imo. So you may take caffeine to beat bad sleep but then caffeine may cause bad sleep, so its an ugly cycle while the whole time you're slowly becoming addicted to it.
That said, I've had good luck with ginseng as a morning 'pick me up.' Building tolerance to it seems slow as well.
I believe the idea of tolerance is somewhat overrated. It exists, but it's probably not much different than tolerance to alcohol–which most people are probably better at judging because the effects are more pronounced.
I can get a decent tolerance to alcohol no problem, but it doesn't make me feel like shit everyone morning until I have some nor does I get horrible headaches if I try to quit. In fact, withdrawal is so bad its now listed in the DSM-5:
Caffeine Withdrawal DSM-5 292.0 (F15.93)
Symptoms of caffeine withdrawal have been described since the early nineteenth century but have only recently been researched (Ozsungur, Brenn & El-Sohemy, 2009) . The DSM-5 explains that the most common symptom of caffeine withdrawal is headache. The headache is usually throbbing and sensitive to movement. Headache is the most persistent symptom of caffeine withdrawal and can last as long as three weeks. Changes in mood, such as depression and anxiety; difficulty concentrating and fatigue are also common and can occur without headache. Some patients experience flu-like symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and achiness (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Other symptoms include caffeine cravings and increased appetite (Juliano, et al., 2012) These symptoms begin within 12- 24 hours of caffeine cessation after prolonged daily caffeine ingestion (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). 96% of patients experience at least two symptoms during withdrawal (Juliana, et al., 2012) Symptoms often occur on weekends when individuals tend to sleep in and begin ingesting caffeine later in the day than normal. If caffeine cessation continues, symptoms can last as long as nine days, with headaches lasting as long as three weeks. Symptoms disappear almost instantly if caffeine consumption resumes. Because many people underestimate their caffeine consumption, symptoms are often unexpected and attributed to other causes, such as illness (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
I can concur with this article. Non-hallucinogenic doses of hallucinogens does give one a feeling of clarity and purpose. This works with mushrooms as well although obviously it's harder to get the dosage correct.
anecdotal, but I strongly believe it makes you actually sharper. Not everyone needs more dopaminergic stimulation though (I certainly do to function in society)
Every stimulator drug always backfires. I won't be surprised if the subjects of research will go into deep depression and productivity slump once they stop microdosing therapy.
Still not, I'm afraid. More clarity and spiritual insight and greatly enhanced sense of belonging. It all comes down to what you do with the tool you're given. What you have in mind.
I also depends on your initial state and the source of your problems. If there's a problem in your body chemistry and you take a stimulator that temporarily fills holes in it, the whole structure will crash when you stop taking it in.
https://www.gwern.net/LSD%20microdosing this article was posted on HN a few years back, and talks about an self-administered blind study of microdosing, which found limited benefits of microdosing, counter to most anecdotal examples.