Gus, is it true?

[RoostersTilliDie]

Anyone heard a rumour about Lucy in the sky with diamonds?

[King Salvo]

Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is a Beatles song on the Legendary Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band Album

The Legendary Beatles producer George Martin rarely if at any time made a mistake in producing any Beatles records but on this occasion the omission of Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane from that Album was an oversight on his part.

EMI were desperate for a new Beatles single so Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane were the songs recorded for the Double A side single

Both of these songs appeared on the Magical Mystery Tour Album and also in the Film of the same name.

Always been a lot of Rumours about that Song's meaning as often a reference to L.S.D is mentioned and even though the Beatles were taking LSD at the time - the following was always John Lennon's version

John Lennon said that his inspiration for the song came when his three-year-old son Julian showed him a nursery school drawing that he called "Lucy – in the Sky with Diamonds", depicting his classmate Lucy O'Donnell.

[RoostersTilliDie]

Cute

[Inflictor]

Anyone heard a rumour about Lucy in the sky with diamonds?

https://youtu.be/vn_PSJsl0LQ

[Steakface]

Anyone heard a rumour about Lucy in the sky with diamonds?

Even if it's true, so what?

It isn't a particularly harmful drug, and isn't addictive in the slightest.

Harm to society is basically zero, harm to users is negligible (Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...DrugsTable.svg)

It has mental health risks to a minority of people who take it - those predisposed to it. But still very safe.

It's naturally occuring - the active ingredient comes from a fungus.

Makes little sense that it's illegal.

Anyone strongly anti-LSD is totally lacking in the logic department.

On the topic.....I really hope Gus is doing well, regardless of what triggered his own personal event/s.

[Rooster1908]

Even if it's true, so what?

It isn't a particularly harmful drug, and isn't addictive in the slightest.

Harm to society is basically zero, harm to users is negligible (Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...DrugsTable.svg)

It has mental health risks to a minority of people who take it - those predisposed to it. But still very safe.

It's naturally occuring - the active ingredient comes from a fungus.

Makes little sense that it's illegal.

Anyone strongly anti-LSD is totally lacking in the logic department.

On the topic.....I really hope Gus is doing well, regardless of what triggered his own personal event/s.

Always glad to listen to someone who knows more than the experts.Not particularly harmful is to harmful

[Rooster1908]

Anyone heard a rumour about Lucy in the sky with diamonds?

And if you mean the rumour that he has been diagnosed with bipolar then yes that's true .

[King Salvo]

Even if it's true, so what?

It isn't a particularly harmful drug, and isn't addictive in the slightest.

Harm to society is basically zero, harm to users is negligible (Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...DrugsTable.svg)

It has mental health risks to a minority of people who take it - those predisposed to it. But still very safe.

It's naturally occuring - the active ingredient comes from a fungus.

Makes little sense that it's illegal.

Anyone strongly anti-LSD is totally lacking in the logic department.

On the topic.....I really hope Gus is doing well, regardless of what triggered his own personal event/s.

Look up Pink Floyd Documentaries and in particular note what happened to Syd Barrett from his over consumption of LSD

Any type of mind altering drugs can make existing symptoms worse - Roger Waters is adamant that Syd Barrett suffered from schizophrenia and his condition only worsened as a result of the amount of LSD he consumed

[Steakface]

Always glad to listen to someone who knows more than the experts.Not particularly harmful is to harmful

You clearly didn't investigate even as far as my link, let alone anything else in more depth.

Alcohol and Cannabis have been determined by personal harm and harm to society to be more harmful than LSD. Alcohol significantly more so.

Yet Alcohol is legal, and Cannabis is becoming increasingly legal in various countries.

The statistics do not show it is unacceptably harmful. Everything has risks, its the degree of risk that is the question, and whether that is acceptable or unacceptable.

If alcohol and cannabis are acceptable risks, then LSD certainly is.

[Rooster1908]

You clearly didn't investigate even as far as my link, let alone anything else in more depth.

Alcohol and Cannabis have been determined by personal harm and harm to society to be more harmful than LSD. Alcohol significantly more so.

Yet Alcohol is legal, and Cannabis is becoming increasingly legal in various countries.

The statistics do not show it is unacceptably harmful. Everything has risks, its the degree of risk that is the question, and whether that is acceptable or unacceptable.

If alcohol and cannabis are acceptable risks, then LSD certainly is.

I didn't say dope is a acceptable risk as I have seen first hand the effects it has on people especially those with mental health issues who self medicate. Alcohol abuse is bad as well .As I said before all drugs including alcohol have a detrimental effect on society.I certainly didn't need to research your link to figure that out .

[Steakface]

I didn't say dope is a acceptable risk as I have seen first hand the effects it has on people especially those with mental health issues who self medicate. Alcohol abuse is bad as well .As I said before all drugs including alcohol have a detrimental effect on society.I certainly didn't need to research your link to figure that out .

You said

Not particularly harmful is to harmful

Therefore, where is your line drawn? What is an acceptable and unacceptable risk in your eyes?

Do you drink? Do you drive a car? A motorbike? Are you a cyclist? Do you live in a city with high particulates in the air? Have a diet that might be too high in cholesterol?

The list goes on. The nature of life is there is a degree of risk.

Once again...what is acceptable to you, and what is not?

Is you view based on raw statistics? Or is based on some vague notion of what should be acceptable at this point in time in our particular society? Or is it based on something else?

[Rooster1908]

You said

Therefore, where is your line drawn? What is an acceptable and unacceptable risk in your eyes?

Do you drink? Do you drive a car? A motorbike? Are you a cyclist? Do you live in a city with high particulates in the air? Have a diet that might be too high in cholesterol?

The list goes on. The nature of life is there is a degree of risk.

Once again...what is acceptable to you, and what is not?

Is you view based on raw statistics? Or is based on some vague notion of what should be acceptable at this point in time in our particular society? Or is it based on something else?

. Driving is legal . Drugs are not . Your argument is illogical.

[rented tracksuit]

“Drugs are bad”

[Steakface]

. Driving is legal . Drugs are not . Your argument is illogical.

Your response is totally irrelevant.

You said

Not particularly harmful is to harmful

So. That being the case, what is acceptable risk and unacceptable risk to you in respect to personal/social harm, and why?

[rented tracksuit]

Ask Mickey Lane. He’s an expert!