[LoganDark]

LSD is also a party drug. You may be referring instead to hard drugs, which are so called because they create physical dependence, psychological addiction, or brain damage (or all of the above).

LSD is technically legally considered a hard drug, because it has the potential to trigger schizophrenia and psychosis in individuals who are in any way predisposed to such; it also is legally classified as a hallucinogen, and all of which are classified as hard drugs, legally speaking.

However, non-legally speaking, I don't consider it a hard drug because it doesn't cause dependence, addiction, or brain damage that is detectable; despite the relative lack of professional research into the substance, there is at least decent evidence that it is not literally neurotoxic. With that said, the potential psychological effects are not to be underestimated, and the experience of a bad trip can cause significant damage purely through the emotional trauma of it.

Practically speaking, there's little difference between being prescribed the substance by a doctor and administering the substance myself, other than that the responsibility of managing my regimen would fall to the doctor rather than myself; however, I'd technically prefer to get this stuff from the pharmacy because then I'd know it's not adulterated, but I can just do reagent tests at home for now.

I would be happy to move to a prescribed treatment if ever this treatment is able to be offered by prescription; that aside, however, my own due diligence is sufficient for my needs and is not likely to result in a fatal overdose. I can't be entirely confident that it's impossible of course, but I can have a high degree of confidence that I'm not putting myself in significant danger right now.

The slippery slope argument doesn't entirely apply here, as I've actually tried other hard drugs (benzos, opioids, dissociatives, etc.) and could never really get into them (with the exception of benzos which I had to stop filling). I understand how they become addictive for others, but I don't really think I'm personally interested in them. What's more addictive for me isn't a body high but the ability to fully utilize my mind, which is what LSD does for me. It makes me feel as if I'm not limited like I am normally, which is incredibly refreshing.

[RamblingCTO]

The big differentiator for me is possible harm and addiction. Psychedelics don't typically bring both (I am under the impression, that we actually don't really know how schizophrenia and psychosis relates or is triggered by psychedelics, that was my impression of recent research). Using crack, heroin etc. and "designer drugs" etc. is a whole other thing. Safety of consumption is just on another level for both classes. Even with "designer" psychedelics that are just added molecules. Tbh I don't know about any totally and weird synthetic psychedelics, I'm assuming shrooms, LSD/AL-LAD (which are both of course synthetic as well), mescaline, ibogaine, and DMT essentially. I hope everyone reading get's the distinction I'm trying to make.

[LoganDark]

Yes, I understand. Serotonergic psychedelics are typically not big sources of addiction, and they typically only cause great harm if taken incorrectly or by someone with a genetic predisposition towards schizophrenia or psychosis; though even then, the harm is only really psychological (but it can be permanent).

Please do note, however, that there are psychedelics which are not serotonergic psychedelics, such as psychedelic amphetamines. These are not typically nearly as safe, just as amphetamines in general typically are not particularly safe when used incorrectly.