ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (05/17/86)
Heard a fragment of a news story on the radio the other day. Appears that a bunch of college students got unintentionally high on LSD when someone spiked the coffee machine. One possible long term effect of this that wasn't mentioned is that these students will probably be denied jobs on the basis of their urine tests until the level of LSD in their blood becomes undetectable. Even then they will never be able to pass a lie detector test if asked the question "have you ever taken an illegal drug". Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) (05/19/86)
In article <180@fai.UUCP> fai!ronc writes: [story about LSD-spiked coffee machine] >Even then they will never be able to pass a lie detector test if asked >the question "have you ever taken an illegal drug". They didn't "take" the drug; they were "given" it. If the testee honestly believes this interpretation, he should be able to pass a polygraph test. (Besides, what's wrong with answering "not intentionally" and giving the full story?)
david@tekig5.UUCP (05/20/86)
In article <840@bentley.UUCP> kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) writes: >In article <180@fai.UUCP> fai!ronc writes: >[story about LSD-spiked coffee machine] >>Even then they will never > be able to pass a lie detector test if asked >>the question "have you ever taken an illegal drug". > >They didn't "take" the drug; they were "given" it. If the testee honestly >believes this interpretation, he should be able to pass a polygraph test. >(Besides, what's wrong with answering "not intentionally" and giving the >full story?) A lie detector will not detect the truth. What it will do is inform the operator that you have shown a nervous reaction to the question. This can be interpreted as a lie. If you were asked whether you had ever "bopped" your best friends SO, you would probably have a reaction even if you had only THOUGHT about it. dave I am sure I have commited adultery in my mind many times......
dts@gitpyr.UUCP (Danny Sharpe) (05/23/86)
In article <840@bentley.UUCP> kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) writes: >In article <180@fai.UUCP> fai!ronc writes: >[story about LSD-spiked coffee machine] >>Even then they will never be able to pass a lie detector test if asked >>the question "have you ever taken an illegal drug". > >They didn't "take" the drug; they were "given" it. If the testee honestly >believes this interpretation, he should be able to pass a polygraph test. >(Besides, what's wrong with answering "not intentionally" and giving the >full story?) I can see the testee being made to feel ashamed and guilty about it, like women are often made to feel about being raped. It comes with being part of a society that stigmatizes these things. If the testee feels shame and guilt then it doesn't matter much to the lie detector test whether they took the drug deliberately or not. -Danny -- -- "How can I tell," said the man, "that the past isn't a fiction designed to account for the discrepancy between my immediate physical sensations and my state of mind?" -- Danny Sharpe School of ICS Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!dts
showard@udenva.UUCP (Steve "Blore" Howard) (05/27/86)
In article <683@tekig5.UUCP> david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) writes: > >A lie detector will not detect the truth. What it will do is inform >the operator that you have shown a nervous reaction to the question. >This can be interpreted as a lie. If you were asked whether you had >ever "bopped" your best friends SO, you would probably have a reaction >even if you had only THOUGHT about it. > It's not even that good. A "lie detector" will indicate whether you exhibit certain physical signs which are associated with stress, or a nervous reaction, which may be associated with not telling the truth. It takes a very skilled polygraph operator to determine anything at all from a session, and simply strapping a subject to the box and asking him a long string of questions will produce results that are worse than useless. -- "Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better" Steve "Blore" Howard, Evil Genius at Large {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/28/86)
> Alchohol is hallucinagenic. In other words, when under the influence > of alchohol, one sees, feels, or hears things that would not be seen, > heard, or felt if not under its influence. > > LSD is also hallucinagenic in this way. I've been under the influence of alchohol many times, and failed to notice this effect. Does it only happen when you get many times as sloshed as any reasonable person would, or what? Does it happen to you when you drink alchohol? > Ken Arnold -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (05/29/86)
>> = Me > = Jeff Sonntag >> Alchohol is hallucinagenic. In other words, when under the influence >> of alchohol, one sees, feels, or hears things that would not be seen, >> heard, or felt if not under its influence. >> >> LSD is also hallucinagenic in this way. > > I've been under the influence of alchohol many times, and failed to >notice this effect. Does it only happen when you get many times as sloshed as >any reasonable person would, or what? Does it happen to you when you drink >alchohol? Perhaps I could state it more clearly to you by saying that both alchohol and LSD alter your perception of reality, i.e., when under the influence of either, your interpretations of sensory inputs and other events are altered. As an example, many people's perceptions of the humor of a situation changes when they are drunk. They will laugh at things which seem pretty stupid to any sober person. People run into things which they didn't notice because they pay less attention to the outer edges of their visual range. They miscalculate where objects are. Their hearing becomes less sensitive (which is one reason people who are drunk tend to talk loudly). The drunken person is also more prone to violence, i.e., finds it more statisfying or values it as a solution more. (All of these have variants. I have a friend who becomes more sensitive to sound when really drunk.) This does, indeed, happen to me when I drink alchohol, the degree varying with the amount consumed (and other environmental conditions). It happens to everyone I know. I usually don't drink enough to make these effects a problem for me. Most people drink because they enjoy being in the altered state that alchohol puts them, or at least they enjoy it more than being sober. If it *didn't* affect peoples sense and moods, it wouldn't be used. Ken Arnold
suhre@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) (05/30/86)
In article <918@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >> Alchohol is hallucinagenic. In other words, when under the influence >> of alchohol, one sees, feels, or hears things that would not be seen, >> heard, or felt if not under its influence. >> > I've been under the influence of alchohol many times, and failed to >notice this effect. Does it only happen when you get many times as sloshed as >any reasonable person would, or what? Does it happen to you when you drink >alchohol? > There is such a thing as delerium tremens, DT's for short, and I may be misspelling. I believe the DT's start when the use of alcohol is discontinued, i.e. when the alcohol abuser starts the "drying out" process. The movie "Lost Weekend", starring Ray Milland circa 1945, has a marvelous sequence where he "sees" a bat emerging from the wall after it ate a hole in the wall to emerge from. (I'm glad my old English teacher didn't see that last sentence!) Any textbook on alcohol abuse will probably describe the DT's. I never had them, and have never hallucinated under the influence of alcohol (unless you call thinking that I could drink normally was a hallucination!). For complete information, you need a medical practitioner. -- Maurice Suhre {decvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,ucbvax}!trwrb!suhre
glenn@c3pe.UUCP (06/03/86)
I don't think alcohol is a hallucinogen, even though it alters perceptions. I'll hit a dictionary later, but I suspect the definition is more precise than that. I do know that alcohol is a depressant. The ways in which LSD and alcohol alter perception are different. Alcohol mainly subtracts, LSD also largely distorts and "adds". (I don't think it really adds any new input, but rather that it removes "filtering" allowing you to see things that evolution has decided are too distracting (such as the movement of blood cells in the eye). I could be wrong.) I'm not saying that alcohol does not produce "hallucinations". I am saying that that is not its main effect on perception. Does anyone know the physiological actions of the two well enough to explain similarities/differences between their effects on the brain itself? D. Glenn Arthur Jr. ..!seismo!dolqci!hqhomes!glenn