The Instigator
SuperHans
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AdamKG
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

LSD should be legal under license

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
AdamKG
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,040 times Debate No: 56340
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

SuperHans

Pro

LSD-25 is a wonderful, magical chemical that has touched and improved many lives. It can open possibilities that have never even been dreamt of. Throughout the 20th century it has helped create some of the greatest scientific discoveries and inventions that we know of which includes the discovery of DNA. It has also led to the creation of tens of thousands of songs if not more. It also has medical uses and can treat a wide array of diseases and illnesses.
AdamKG

Con

I accept and look forward to our debate.

LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide) is a psychodelic drug that alters thinking processes, closed- and open-eye visuals, synesthesia, an alter sense of time and spiritual experiences. There are a small number of significant people in the past who claim they were positively influenced by the drug. I honestly think they would have been significant without the use of a psychodelic drug.

The medical uses are largely either unproven, inconclusive, or insignificant compared to alternatives. While LSD may have some potential medical uses there are preferable alternatives in modern medical science. The use of such psychodelic hallucinogens like LSD-25 has more cons than pros.
Debate Round No. 1
SuperHans

Pro

LSD was declared a "Schedule 1", entailing that the drug has a "high potential for abuse" and is without any "currently accepted medical use in treatment." Firstly please prove that LSD has a HIGH potential for abuse (addiction) AND that it there are NO medical uses.

Some of the people who used LSD as inspiration for there inventions: Steve Jobs - Apple Products, Kary Mullis - The PCR Machin, Francis Crick - The DNA Double-Helix Concept, Kevin Herbert - Router Software, Douglas Engelbart - The Mouse. Think of where we would be without those inventions.

LSD has been shown as one of the only treatments of cluster headaches. The only other being other psychedelics. This has been subjected to being the most painful condition known to humans and LSD can take that pain away when nothing else can.

LSD is a victimless crime, a person takes it and will continue to trip peacefully and often with a "trip sitter" or sober person to ensure that things are kept under control. This is why I also argue to make it only legal under a license similar to firearms or a car. The participants would need to take a safety class and possibly pass a test in order to be able to buy the drug. Then the people will be able to trip peacefully while the people who want nothing to do with it, dont have to buy it. This combined with the fact that no one has ever died from an LSD overdose only enhances the safety of this chemical

One of the first studies in over 40 years has shown the 100% of participants agreed that LSD helped with terminal illness anxiety.

http://www.maps.org...

http://www.neurology.org...

http://www.justice.gov...
AdamKG

Con

Potential For Abuse and Dangers:

There are various cases of LSD being abused extensively. LSD is not technically addictive, but it does develop a strong sense of dependability on users, much like marijuana. The DEA has developed three reasons as to why LSD users may find repeated abuse desirable and dangerous:
• The long duration of the drug's effects means the user will not have to purchase the drug on a rapidly recurring basis.
• Tolerance develops so quickly that repeated ingestion is useless so the dosages have to become more potent.
• The inconsistent effects and potential adverse reactions lead to erratic use of LSD. This can be seen as exciting and users will not become bored.

The abuse of LSD is not as common as most other hallucinogens or narcotics, but it does occur with potentially dangerous effects. LSD use can cause people to have psychotic-like reactions and become dangerous to themselves or others. This data was collected by University of Maryland studies. Adverse effects include:
• Intense anxiety
• Panic
• Delusions
• Paranoia
• Rapid mood swings
• The sense that one is losing his/her identity.
• The fear one is disintegrating into nothingness and reality does not exist.
• The frightening and disorienting effects of a bad trip are known to result in violent or hazardous behavior, leading to accidental fatalities, homicides, self-mutilation, or suicide.
• Some users may experience seizures.

Long-term effects include:
• Drug-induced Psychosis for some people, even those with no history or symptoms of psychological disorders, a distorted ability to recognize reality, think rationally, or communicate with others caused by LSD may last years after taking the drug.
• Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder (HPPD) Known familiarly to LSD users as "flashbacks," HPPD episodes are "spontaneous, repeated recurrences of some of the sensory distortions originally produced by LSD." 27 The flashback experience may include visual disturbances such as halos or trails attached to moving objects or seeing false motions in the peripheral vision.

Sources:
- http://www.cesar.umd.edu...
- http://www.lsdaddiction.us...

Medical Uses:

Nobody claims there are “no medical uses” for LSD. There is apparent medical value with this drug, however, they are not considered worth the side-effects or the studies are just inconclusive. There is a lack of studies to prove that LSD is actually safe or worthwhile in medicine. University of California San Francisco and Harvard are both studying for possible uses of LSD, but they are both inconclusive so far. LSD has some potential use in treating anxiety, but there are preferable alternatives to proscribing a psychedelic drug with a history of causing dependency on users and with hazardous side-effects. Safer and proven alternatives include:
• Diazepam (Valium)
• Alprazolam (Xanax)
• Lorazepam (Ativan)
• Clonazepam (Klonopin)
• Sertraline (Zoloft)
• Paroxetine (Paxil)
• Fluoxetine (Prozac)
• Escitalopram (Lexapro)
• Citalopram (Celexa)
• Venlafaxine (Effexor)

While most of these drugs also have dependency their side-effects are mild and not nearly as hazardous as LSD. There are also proven therapeutic ways to treat anxiety not using drugs at all. There is little reason to consider LSD when you have more accepted and proven drugs at your disposal that are much safer to use with the same desired effect. That is the reason why the United States, Canada, and the UK do not use LSD in their medical communities and consider it to have no reasonable medical use.

Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...

LSD as an Inspiration:

First of all, Steve Jobs only said he used it and didn’t claim it helped him in any way. Kary Mullis is a rare case of LSD assisting in scientific development, but there is no proof that he wouldn’t have developed it either. The fact that he credits his research to a psychedelic drug proves his lack of confidence in himself and I am sure somebody would have developed it soon after he due to his lack of hallucinogens.

There is actually no evidence of Francis Crick using LSD when he came up with the double-helix concept. Biographer Matt Ridley actually suggests it is unlikely since that discovery was made before LSD was popularized and would have been unavailable to him. Also, the story that suggested that Crick used LSD was reported second hand meaning it used secondary sources and may lack credibility. Ridley got his information directly from Crick’s wife who said Crick wasn’t supplied with LSD until 1967. Crick developed the double-helix concept in 1953 and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962.

Source: http://www.rationaloptimist.com...

Legalization Method:

“LSD is a victimless crime, a person takes it and will continue to trip peacefully and often with a "trip sitter" or sober person to ensure that things are kept under control. This is why I also argue to make it only legal under a license similar to firearms or a car. The participants would need to take a safety class and possibly pass a test in order to be able to buy the drug.”

LSD can have victims with the fact that the drug can cause psychotic reactions on the users. LSD users can easily become violent and unpredictable. LSD is illegal for recreational use as a preventative measure for something that will almost certainly happen at least on occasion. If there is an obvious chance that people will be harmed or even killed it should not be legalized for mere recreational use. The “trip sitter” would be put in great danger and perhaps more than what he/she is aware of. Taking classes to prepare people for “trips” would not work because once LSD takes effect any rational knowledge the person may have had is gone. People on powerful hallucinogens are no longer rational.

How strict will your test be? What will be tested? What would be covered in the safety class? You should also consider the fact that this program you are suggesting will popularize LSD across the board. How do you know that people who are rejected from the program will still find a way to get the drug through illegal means? You are now giving out licenses for people to buy LSD legally if they pass your program. What will stop them from illegally selling it to people who could not pass your program once they have obtained a license to buy it? They can easily just buy it and then secretly sell it for a profit to people who your program would have declared unfit or dangerous to have LSD.

“Then the people will be able to trip peacefully while the people who want nothing to do with it, dont have to buy it. This combined with the fact that no one has ever died from an LSD overdose only enhances the safety of this chemical”

There is no evidence that people will actually trip peacefully. LSD effects are unpredictable and people can have “bad trips” that can potentially cause permanent harm. There are no confirmed cases of people dying from LSD overdose, but it is possible and we shouldn’t encourage it to happen. People can and have died or got seriously injured (sometimes mutilated) while on LSD due to its effects.
Debate Round No. 2
SuperHans

Pro

Those three reasons are pointless as they hardly indicate danger at all. No one has ever become an LSD addict in the sense that they feel the have to have LSD. No one would want to trip everyday all day long. Why does a more potent dosage cause more danger. There is 0% of overdosing. Just because its exciting doesnt mean its dangerous. Donuts are exciting, exercise is exciting. LSD users know what they are taking and the side effects it has. Just because its labeled an adverse affect doesn't mean its not a intended effect. Many people of the psychedelic community would have a goal of achieve ego death or becoming nothingness. According to Halpern (2003) HPPD isnt even statistically relevant because it has such a low prevalence.

These other drugs you listed have had proven dangers to a much greater state than LSD such as real physical and mental addiction, dementia, blackouts, harm to others. Much of the same effects that have been misrepresented for LSD but only on untested and unproven theories. Since LSD is so restricted and classed on the same level as heroin and even an higher level than methamphetamine or cocaine, that it is very hard to even give it a fair test or experiment. Far more lives have been ruined by these prescribed drugs than LSD (per captia).

In saying that all these other famous discoveries where just accidents is conjecture. Sure someone may have done all this without LSD but with those people actually saying that it helped them that is the most logical answer we have.

And saying that LSD is dangerous and people are going to lose their minds and hurt people is just fear mongering. There have been only under 50 confirmed cases of LSD related deaths in the world. This is with the people who already take LSD even though its illegal, the demand will always be there. Whether illegal or not people will always have access to the drug. Making it legal only heightens safety in the way or eliminated drug deals and teaching people safety classes.

Why would people buy something that is NEVER peaceful, hundreds of thousands of people use LSD and only 4% of them say it has effected their life negatively. People also reported that out of their entire history only 5% had ever had a bad trip. As with alcohol, driving and firearms people with still do these things without the proper authority but licenses help keep it as safe as possible. You make this point yet that is exactly what is happening now. Legalising only makes it safer. Just because its legalised doesn't mean it would make more people try it. If someone is going to want to try something the law isn't going to stop them when its so hard to police and hundreds of thousands of people get away with it.

Now lets ask ourselves about the real issue of legalisation. Possession of LSD penalty can range from 6 months to 5 years and trafficking can range from 5 years to a death sentence. You have to really ask yourself if its right to end a human beings life over selling a consenting adult something they want that leads to happiness, introspection and makes peoples lives better. Even at the very minimum a jail sentence means you lose your job, criminal record, family troubles, financial troubles, trouble ever looking for a job, stigma and the fact you have to spend years of your life in prison. These "criminals" have to spend years in prison because they willing choose to alter their body in the very same fashion as alcohol or a tattoo. There is no plaintiff. No one reported this crime. There is no victim.

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...

http://articles.mercola.com...

http://www.erowid.org...

http://bja.oxfordjournals.org...

http://www.legalmatch.com...
AdamKG

Con

Rebuttals:



Those three reasons are pointless as they hardly indicate danger at all.”


I presented the reason: “The inconsistent effects and potential adverse reactions lead to erratic use of LSD. This can be seen as exciting and users will not become bored.” This is potentially dangerous in that it encourages repeated behavior that is potentially hazardous to themselves or others. If you legalize the drug it will only become more frequent and hazardous consequences will happen. Even “bad trips” currently only happens 14.5% (gathered from your source: http://www.erowid.org...) of the time that will be amplified with the greater number of cases.


“No one has ever become an LSD addict in the sense that they feel the have to have LSD.”


LSD is not addictive but it can have a strong dependency. Like any drug with hallucinogenic and altered consciousness effects it can have a dependency like with marijuana.


“There is 0% of overdosing.”


Overdosing is possible.


Source:


- http://www.projectknow.com...


- http://www.indyweek.com...


LSD users know what they are taking and the side effects it has. Just because its labeled an adverse affect doesn't mean its not a intended effect. Many people of the psychedelic community would have a goal of achieve ego death or becoming nothingness.”


That may be true, however, that does not mean it is safe. A person on a powerful hallucinogen is not coherent or rational and, therefore, potentially dangerous. The adverse effects are called “adverse” because it is generally bad and even if it is intended by the user that does not mean it is always safe even with someone who may be experienced. LSD is a powerful drug that is unpredictable and playing with it is dangerous regardless of who you are. Firefighters have experience with raging fires but that does not mean they are invincible or will never get harmed from it because fire is a powerful force of nature.


“These other drugs you listed have had proven dangers to a much greater state than LSD…”


I would not say they are greater than LSD. Those dangers also only exist when those drugs are improperly prescribed. Benzodiazepines are only intended to be prescribed for short periods of time. Many doctors are letting their patients remain taking them for much longer than what the drug is intended. That is a result of lazy doctoring, not poor drugs. Doctors also may not prescribe the best drug for that specific case since there is a list to choose from. A similar scenario could happen with LSD if it is prescribed incorrectly. LSD has a long ways to go in research and dozens of adverse effects have already risen and risk for abuse is higher than with benzodiazepines.


“Much of the same effects that have been misrepresented for LSD but only on untested and unproven theories.”


I want to see a source for this. I didn’t find this in any of your listed sources. From what I have found the adverse effects are clearly supported by studies largely from the University of Maryland.


Source: http://www.cesar.umd.edu...


“Since LSD is so restricted and classed on the same level as heroin and even an higher level than methamphetamine or cocaine, that it is very hard to even give it a fair test or experiment.”


That is not true. As a Schedule I drug meaning it is illegal to possess outside of a laboratory. This allows for studies to be done freely. There are universities that are experimenting with LSD so this claim in unfounded.


Far more lives have been ruined by these prescribed drugs than LSD (per captia).”


That is only because LSD has far fewer recorded cases of use. Millions of people are prescribed benzodiazepines while less than a million are known to have taken LSD. If you raised the number of people regularly using LSD I am sure you would find more issues with that drug as well.


“Making it legal only heightens safety in the way or eliminated drug deals and teaching people safety classes.”


That is not necessarily true. Making drugs that are potentially dangerous to the users and to others legal to attempt regulating it does not always work.


Suggested Reading: https://en.wikipedia.org...


As I said before, how do you know the safety classes would work? Once someone starts their “trip” their reason and coherence drops significantly and anything they may have learned in their class will no longer matter. Their “trip sitter” may not be able to control them and may irresponsible as well as in potential danger.


“People also reported that out of their entire history only 5% had ever had a bad trip.”


According to your own source (http://www.erowid.org...) “14.5% report having experienced at least one “very” or “extremely” “bad trip””.


Issues with Legislation:


“Possession of LSD penalty can range from 6 months to 5 years and trafficking can range from 5 years to a death sentence.”


That is wrong according to your own source (http://www.legalmatch.com...). There is no capital punishment with LSD trafficking. There is life imprisonment and with drug offenses parole is relatively easily obtained during the sentence. The life sentence is also for if a death or serious injury occurs to someone due to the crime. With LSD being a drug that can cause violent behavior to users it is possible.


“There is no plaintiff. No one reported this crime. There is no victim.”


There does not necessarily need to be an individual plaintiff in court. The government or the local community can be thought as the plaintiff in this type of trial. You will still be subject to a jury of your peers. In many cases someone does report the crime because they do not want LSD users in their neighborhood. There can be clear-cut victims if someone is harmed due to the crime. Otherwise, the fact that you were encouraging the use of LSD among other people makes the community as a whole your victim because the people do not want it occurring around them. That is majority rule in democracy.


Questions of Legislation:


The law as it stands now is well made for a drug that is potentially harmful to society and I do not agree with your solutions. You also have not answered all my questions before about your ideas of regulating the drug legalization. I do agree that we should be discussing that more than the effects of the drug itself as I think we have made our cases with that clear.


You claim LSD makes lives better for people and will apparently improve society. How would our society be improved by legalizing a powerful hallucinogen for recreational use? I believe only the dangers of LSD use escalating if the drug is legalized. I am sure that is what the government has concluded as well which is why it is listed as a Schedule I drug.


Questions from previous argument:


How strict will your test be? What will be tested? What would be covered in the safety class? You should also consider the fact that this program you are suggesting may popularize LSD across the board. How do you know that people who are rejected from the program will still find a way to get the drug through illegal means? You are now giving out licenses for people to buy LSD legally if they pass your program. What will stop them from illegally selling it to people who could not pass your program? They can legally buy it and then secretly sell it for a profit to people who your program would have declared unfit or dangerous to have LSD. That would very likely increase the use of LSD because of its newfound convenience to find dealers who are now legally possessing LSD. You are effectively making LSD trafficking partly legal with your method.


Debate Round No. 3
SuperHans

Pro

You claim LSD has all these dangers but if it isnt actually harming the user how is that a bad thing. Just because the side effects exist doesn't mean that you will get them every single trip. As I stated before hundreds of thousands of people seem to find LSD a great drug and continue to go back to it and purchase it again. Why else would someone risk breaking the law in order to take LSD. If it was so bad and so dangerous why do so many people continue to take it. With the level of danger you are claiming we would be hearing about LSD dangers every single day on the news. As I state before only 4% of people said it effected their life negatively. My evidence is based on user reports who have first hand experience which is what counts rather than random reports of adverse effects placed out of context. If the users are enjoying it as an overall experience why is it such a bad thing? You can mention all the side effects you want but you still haven't listed any real danger. In the very few people that actually do suffer bad trips even they go on to take more LSD because they know the dangers of LSD yet realise that the good outways the bad. These side effects are noted by the user and are easily overcome with the right mindset.

Firefighters train through experience. After they have done something enough they know how to handle a situation. The same applies with LSD, the more experience you have the easier it becomes to deal with. You also keep mentioning that LSD in unpredictable and dangerous. I would disagree because while every trip is unique it still produces the same basic effects that can be described. I also fail to see how the person is actually being put in danger. The survey shows the people overwhelmingly feel that they have a good time and are never actually placed in real danger that could threaten their life or health. One of your sources states that an "LSD analogue" caused someone to put themselves in danger but we are not discussing analogues, we are solely discussing the chemical that is LSD-25.

Schedule I drugs can be studied in a lab but only after a very lengthy process and permission to do so from the government. I also ask that as I state above that LSD is in the same class as heroin and classed as even more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamine. Do you actually agree that is causes more harm than these chemicals.

You state that making drugs legal is going to cause everyone to start taking it and will all those dangers you listed, they are going to harm themselves very significantly even though 95% of people before them seemed to enjoy it. Denver recently legalised marijuana for recreational purposes and actually showed a drop in crime. The streets didnt explode with marijuana addicts and crime. Regulating these drugs is the future and it works and have been show to work in many other places such as Portugal and Netherlands. In the Netherlands marijuana use actually went down. They also have had magic mushrooms and truffles legalized. In being very chemically similar to LSD, the people there have not gone crazy and have seemed to hold onto there sanity even though they are being bombarded with all these adverse effects and dangers.

I wouldnt know if the safety classes would work but it couldnt hurt and would hopefully teach people the best methods of staying safe. Teens are taught the dangers of alcohol and smoking in high school and of course there are still the ones who drink and smoke underage anyway. Despite what you may have heard without first hand experience you would not know that when under the influence of LSD you dont lose all control of your being and still are able to make rational choices unless you have a source proving otherwise. It impairs you to a lesser degree to alcohol which kills thousands of people every year.

I was referring to other countries which still have the death penalty for drug offenses. And do you honestly believe that any amount of jail time and all the negatives that come with it is really worth a consenting adult being sent to prison. Should a person really be sent to prison for a simple act of free expression and control over their body. Why should it be the states business what a person does with there body. It is a simple issue of freedom. How can you take away someones freedom for simply wanting to be able to control ones own body.

Yes legally there doesn't need to be a plaintiff but my point is that no one is being hurt and there is no victim that is lodging a complaint. You cant complain about what someone does in there own house that doesn't effect you. Ive never heard of a neighborhood coming together and declaring they hate LSD and think its a menace to society.

LSD has been part of many great discoveries and people and even though you may say steve jobs though LSD was insignificant I quote "One of the most important things in my life." It has changed so many peoples live for the better. Here are some quotes from users about how it made their lives better.

Provided a deeper unterstanding into the complicated maze that is the human and spiritual soul. A more clear perception of the sorrounding world and new possibilities to interpret it.
It has made me realize how much of a gift life and how we all need to take care of our earth so in the future others will be able to experience the same gift that we have.
Has opened my mind to countless possibilities. Made me more aware of the world around and within. Taught me to never accept reality at face value. Given me a keen interest in consciousness and perception.
LSD has allowed me to witness reality in a perspective that one cannot comprehend in sobriety.

LSD was indeed a kind of 'mind expansion' agent for me, opening up what was a rather narrow perception of life. However, I am unable to say if its physical effects were completely benign - the states of our brain health are too complex to assess the effects of only one factor. As yet, I have no regrets.
LSD gave me a new perspective on just about everything that is considered reality. It really allowed me to see the importance of many things that I took for granted--it showed me the fine line between the twisting nether of philosophy and the systematic patterns of science and walked me through both. Without the experiences I've had during unfathomable trips to the depths of my mind and back... I would never understand the world as well as I do today.

LSD altered my perception of how well we actually understand modernity. The discussions I had on LSD significantly affected my understanding of where society is, particular relative to where it's come from, and our understanding of that. Also, shortly after using LSD, the manner i go about using substances has changed. Essentially, I no longer seek a high, and am instead looking more to explore the mind expansion side of substance use.
Emotionally, it was a real help through tough times. I've not used it in a number of years, but only because I can no longer safely and reliably procure it. I know it can be a double-edged sword for some, but I've nothing but glowing reports regarding my past LSD use.
After several trips, and wanting to make some changes in the world, I realized that I needed to finish school so that someday I could make these changes. Then finished undergrad, med school, and became a doctor, and feel good about the changes I am helping make come about.

As i said before the demand for drugs will always be there and those people who would seek it out illegally are no different from now. Except it would only make it safer for the majority of people wanting to purchase it legal

https://www.erowid.org...
http://rt.com...
http://www.spiegel.de...
https://ehs.mit.edu...
AdamKG

Con

Rebuttles:


With the level of danger you are claiming we would be hearing about LSD dangers every single day on the news.


Not every murder is put on the news. Approximately 45 murders occur in the United States every day. You might hear about one or two on an average day on national news if that. Drug-related crime is fairly common with people who are under the influence of a drug; especially a powerful, mind-altering hallucinogen like LSD that can cause a psychotic episode. LSD has a reputation of causing people to become violent and unpredictable. Reputations like that do not happen without a reason.


Source: http://tizona.wordpress.com...


Suggested Reading:


- http://www.pantagraph.com...


- http://www.sfgate.com...


“These side effects are noted by the user and are easily overcome with the right mindset.”


I believe you are assuming far too much from potential users. You are assuming that all of the people who use or will use LSD are going to be responsible about it. That is like selling guns to everyone assuming anybody who would buy a gun is going to be responsible and in the right mindset. That is a dangerous assumption and if you read the suggested reading above you know that not everyone is responsible.


Schedule I drugs can be studied in a lab but only after a very lengthy process and permission to do so from the government.


Your source does not support this statement.


“I also ask that as I state above that LSD is in the same class as heroin and classed as even more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamine. Do you actually agree that is causes more harm than these chemicals.”


I researched and compared all three and come to the conclusion that I believe it is categorized appropriately. You have to remember that the drugs are classified not necessarily due to its health hazards but also for social reasons. The DEA is more concerned about its likelihood of abuse rather than its actual health effects on the abusers. The possible widespread use of hazardous chemicals is of more concern than the actual effects on the body to the government. The government’s purpose is to maintain our society and legalizing potentially hazardous chemicals for public use is not productive toward that goal. If it were only about its health hazards I would agree that cocaine should be higher than LSD, but that is not the purpose of the classification.


Denver recently legalised marijuana for recreational purposes and actually showed a drop in crime. The streets didnt explode with marijuana addicts and crime.


I never actually said that and marijuana is not a very dangerous drug. If I actually stated that you should have quoted me although I am certain I didn’t say that. I am aware that drug crime went down after legalization in Colorado; I watch the news. I was criticizing your methodology of legalizing LSD that would very possibly lead to that outcome because you were unintentionally encouraging illegal sales of LSD.


“Despite what you may have heard without first hand experience you would not know that when under the influence of LSD you dont lose all control of your being and still are able to make rational choices unless you have a source proving otherwise. It impairs you to a lesser degree to alcohol which kills thousands of people every year.”


Again, you are assuming that everyone will be responsible. That is and will not necessarily be the case. There are irresponsible users of drugs such as alcohol, meth, and LSD. People who are responsible I am sure do well to avoid overdosing and losing control, but many do not. You cannot guarantee the safety of those around them when this happens. The effects of LSD overdose are very hazardous potentially leading to psychotic episodes or simply violent behavior that is unpredictable.


I have found a source that does oppose your statement written by a professor of psychology:


“2. Myth -- A Friend or Guide Can Prevent You From Having a Bad Trip


Well-meaning proponents of LSD have promoted the idea that having a friend or "guide" with you while you are on LSD will prevent you from experiencing a bad trip. Supposedly, a grounded, intuitive, and open-minded person can say just the right thing or support you in just the way you need, to ensure you have a marvelous time on LSD.


“Truth -- While having a supportive friend can often help with a bad trip, even people who have experience with LSD and training in psychotherapy are sometimes unable to prevent others from having a negative reaction to the drug. Friends can easily be perceived as enemies by someone experiencing paranoia while they are tripping. And there are plenty of examples of people having bad trips while in the company of those who care about them.”


Sources:


- http://www.projectknow.com...


- http://addictions.about.com...


In Reply to the Quotes:


According to Elizabeth Hartney, PhD in psychology:


“5. Myth -- Acid is the Key to Unlocking the Unconscious Mind


Many people who take LSD believe that acid unlocks your awareness of your unconscious, can give you access to repressed material from your past, and can reveal hidden truths about yourself and about humanity.


Truth -- Taking LSD might get you thinking about things in a way you haven't thought of before, but it does not give you a key to the inner workings of your mind. Acid is just as likely to get you thinking about things that have no basis in reality as uncovering hidden truths. And just because you have taken LSD and thought about your past doesn't mean you know or understand everything that has happened to you -- sometimes genuinely repressed traumatic events emerge during psychotherapy, long after the individual has discontinued the drug. Some people don't remember traumatic events that happened to them at all, and in some cases, this might be for the best.”


All those people, as respectable as they may beg, are kidding themselves. LSD is a manmade hallucinogen, not some magical substance made by pixy fairies. It disrupts your neurotransmitters acting like serotonin, basically manipulating your brain in ways it is not supposed to. It also affects the way your retinas process visual information playing tricks on the eyes. What you perceive while under the influence of LSD is all fake and unnatural and, therefore, has no basis in reality.


Source: http://science.howstuffworks.com...


Conclusion:


I have stated that LSD is a drug that is not only harmful to the user, but is ultimately harmful to society. I think the majority of us agree that what individual people do to themselves do not entirely matter to us. What does matter is what it does to society as a whole. People on LSD cannot be expected to act responsibly and the methods brought forth by pro fails to convince me that it can be managed. Pro also fails to answer all of my questions about how LSD legalization would be managed. We all know that LSD is a more potent drug than marijuana. People on LSD have violent and unpredictable tendencies that are far more serious. We need to consider what is actually best for our communities and if legalizing LSD is actually productive to that end. I do not see how legalizing this Schedule 1 drug for recreational can be productive.


Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds

Just saying
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TrustmeImlying 2 years ago
TrustmeImlying
SuperHansAdamKGTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had excellent conduct and acceptable grammar, but at the heart of the argument lies the simple factor that we don't know enough about this drug for it to be legal. That's not to say that it couldn't ever become legal, but as far as we understand it today, it would be a potentially bad idea.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
SuperHansAdamKGTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments for legalization are very weak.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
SuperHansAdamKGTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an excellent debate, but seeing how Pro had the heavier side of the BoP and that Adam made excellent remarks regarding Pro's case it is clear Con deserves the victory. I liked the fact that medical sources were used but Con successfully showed that there are alternatives and in the end Pro could not justify why LSD was absolutely important. I did not see much of a modal from Pro's side for legalization and there were a lot of claims from Pro which remained both baffling and kind of stupid. I mean there is 0% chance of overdose, maybe he could have argued that with regulation the freedom thingy but that does not make sense. In any case happy to clarify this RFD if needed please message me.