Dirty Acid FAQ & Discussion

[Anon0631]

In the 90's people were just as convinced that 'bad acid' contained strychnine as people are now about 'dirty acid' being impure. Some people thought it was used to stick the acid to the blotter, some that dealers used it to make the acid seem stronger. It's unlikely that earthbounded was alive then but if he was, he would have been on his soap box parroting these theories rather than more modern myths like the chinacat-meme nonsense. Just like now, people then point blank refused to listen to the simplest logic. Strychnine is one of the most bitter substances in existence. If you ate it, you would know about it.

Here's some info for the uninformed. Given access to the right reagents, it's not difficult to make LSD. Running a chromatography colum might be a pain in the arse but its not rocket science. It is however very risky from a legal perspective. If I was making it in my bedroom, myths of fluff-families and all the other grateful dead nonsense would be a beneficial diversion.

 

[Incunabula]

I don't believe there is such thing as dirty acid. I personally never experienced any nausea or other side effects on it. I never experienced vasoconstriction either.

On the other hand, I find it extremely interesting why different batches of LSD exhibit slightly different effects repeatedly, unconnected to set and setting.

Which other ergoloids fit on blotters, and what do we know of them?

If LSD analogs have been produced and sold as LSD, why does all tests show that most blotters contain LSD, and if not, then DOx or NBOMe? I only know of LSM once being found in some european blotters, that's it. It baffles me.

 

[Anon0631]

On the other hand, I find it extremely interesting why different batches of LSD exhibit slightly different effects repeatedly, unconnected to set and setting.

I'm not sure I've seen any convincing evidence this is true.

In the '90s I used to experience purple ohm prints being more mental and green ohm prints being more physical. This is a set issue. It has to do with my own subconscious feelings about purple and green.

 

[Solipsis]

There is another thread about this and I argued my stance there (which has changed since!): I used to believe that dirty LSD could exist and that there is a possibility that the other ergoloid side-products - mentioned above - that could be present while inactive on their own could modulate the effects of LSD at certain receptors. (That would be somewhat similar to cannabinoid mixtures). It is a bold hypothesis if I do say so myself but it might be an explanation, and one that is not disproven, or so I thought.

The extremely simple argument that made me change my mind though is not about disproving such possible explanatory mechanisms but rather that people who took purified Sandoz LSD still sometimes got nasty side-effects! That was for me a showstopper because if that is true there cannot be any other explanation than that "dirty acid" is just part placebo and part idiosyncratic reaction.

Furthermore, if a true FAQ is in order rather than just this well warranted and interesting thread, I propose people start formulating questions so that we can see if we can formulate a consensus answer or two pro vs. con answers.

Since this is actually about a FAQ with a single question, I feel that it is better if we just make this the fresh dirty vs. clean acid debate.

Either way I have merged and archived two instances of this same perennial debate (and links were taken up in the B&D acid OP):

• "Good / Clean vs. Bad / Dirty Acid" Debate
  • Part 1 (archived)
  • Part 2 (archived)
  • Part 3 << which is the thread we are currently in, whatever we call it.

 

[Deinonychus]

Heyo! Thanks Solipsis!

So, does anybody here want to take the pro dirty acid side of things? I figure I'll summarize the same points that I've been making in a nice, easy to read format. Please do feel free to post things up on either side of this, I'm not gonna douche and try to monopolize the topic, and it's probably better from the standpoint of a community FAQ made by multiple people to put it together from multiple posters.

I would think that it might be useful to view this from the point of view of trying to break a complicated issue down into more manageable pieces. Like, what are the symptoms that are associated with dirty acid, what are some alternate explanations for those symptoms, what characteristics would a contaminant need to possess, do we have any candidates, etc.

The point isn't so much to take a thorny issue and break it up into two hundred sentence-length bits but more to formulate maybe three to five questions that explore the issue in a thorough way.

 

[itsALLfake]

I think everyone is focusing far too much on the cognitive side-effects of activity in these compounds. Realization that the study of the mind with LSD and other psychedelics is the primary focus in the study of them eliminates the fact that either stance can stand on solid proof. It is going to be nearly impossible to have an allegation on this subject backed with any real evidence outside experience. You either have the belief you react to compounds included in a LSD synthesis, or you don't. You'll more than likely have the belief that you do if you have people inside your circle you can come in physical contact with corroborating your feelings. If someone is just going based on their own experience without outside influence, it's just way off; however, having many people agreeing with you on this subject and identifying the same feelings you experience batch to batch, it makes it hard to see someone's *opinion* on the other side of this debate as probable truth.

 

[Reverend Random]

I'll be the devil's advocate and ask a question for the FAQ that I think makes a case for the existence of 'dirty acid'.

Q: Is it possible that the intention of the chemists and other people who handled the acid before it came into the hands of the user, negatively or positively influenced the effect of the acid? Family Fluff or Noodly Needlepoint are made by deeply spiritual people who only care about world peace. They only make clean acid. The acid that's made by guys just looking to make profit has a much higher chance to be 'bad' or 'dirty' acid. Since consciousness is all one and since even water has memory, isn't it very probable that someone left their bad karma stink on a batch of acid, thus rendering it more dirty?

 

[itsALLfake]

Needlepoint is just the end result, not determined by a different method, and this is something that can only be learned of in circles. There will be no available intranet source to clarify that. Maybe down the line a book will be written, but even then, the words will just be words from some random someone. A truly successful psychedelic chemist and/or hustler, with a long career as such, is an unknown one.

I can dig the "vibes" theory, but this is even more speculative and could never be answered. Once we are able to answer these types of questions, we will be flying too close to the sun, and you know how that story goes. While using psychedelics like LSD, Mescaline, DMT, etc.. it's hard to disregard the connectivity between everything. The belief is just that, a belief. Once you have a strong belief in universal connectivity, science will not prove nor disprove you belief system, if it is truly a belief. Can't 2+2 possibly equal 5 anyways?

 

[Solipsis]

@RR:

I think we are past the question whether impure LSD exists or not. I think it is safe to say that not all LSD is made by a hippy cartel, and some of the smaller operations (that can still produce a significant amount of hits because of the potency) may not have access to a zeolite column which can be rather expensive, I'm told. The product can be less than pure and impurities have even been listed. They are virtually always there with complex organic chemistry. They don't go away until you do something about it.
(That water would have memory is nonsense from a study that has since been disproven because the conditions under which the photographs were taken were unfairly orchestrated, I am not sure if it has been peer reviewed but I seriously doubt that the results could be replicated.)
We cannot really prove or disprove anything regarding the (meta)"physical" effects of intentions pur sang because it is an irrational belief in non-physical powers that have an immaterial source.
Scientifically speaking I don't know of any body of evidence that supports the existence of supernatural powers like that.
Using science we can resolve disputes using empirical evidence or at least make logically sound theories that you can support exactly because they have the elegance of being logically validated (having some validity) even if not verified (having truth). Actually it is best not to call scientific results true, scientific theory has a nature that is provisional: it helps us to models that are the best we can come up with, until we improve on that, ad infinitum.
This theory of "vibes" or intentions is a game-changer / stopper because it would mean that you can make purified LSD with bad intentions or impure LSD with the ergot fungus still hanging off it but with the greatest intentions. I'm personally of the conviction that generally speaking if you poison someone, even with the best intentions in the world, the subject is not going to have such a good time.
We should by all means stick to the logic and science, if only because with beliefs that have an unexplained basis we run the risk of losing track of the topic to confabulate explanations necessary to make wishful thinking a reality.

 

[WeeksendinginY]

"MLD-41 was the one with similar LSD visuals but no body buzz."

 

[Psichedelic]

While I do acknowledge that Shulgan "proved" the iso-lsd(s) to be non-psychoactive. I've had experience with various degrees of purity in LSD I have a theory.

Similar to how mescaline on its own is a trip, but how when mescaline is added with natural alkaloids from the cacti the trip becomes different. The same is present in many species of psychedelic mushroom. Is it possible that iso-lsd could be responsible for the "dirty acid" feeling, where the body high is slightly different, but the mental high is very reminiscent of high quality LSD? I don't believe any of the mushroom nor cacti alkaloids are psychoactive on their own, but when mixed they add to, or enhance the trip in some ways.


Comments? Testing would obviously need to be done, but it looks entirely plausible currently, as I cannot find any research saying otherwise.

 

[Solipsis]

Read my post #42, where I mention "modulation" of the effects I am talking about the same thing. Similar to what happens in cannabis, mescaline cacti and psilocybian mushroom. Secondary alkaloids may attenuate effects of the primary alkaloid or potentiate them. Even if secondary alkaloids are a substrate for the same enzymes that break down the primary alkaloid, there is pharmacological interaction because it would allow more of the primary alkaloid to act unhindered. It doesn't seem like such a stretch to me that something like this happens with ergoloids...

But before going into that I would still want an answer to the question:

Q: If there is such a thing as dirty acid and the impurities are held responsible for negative effects, how come those same negative effects are also said to be reported with pure Sandoz LSD?

 

[Psichedelic]

You ask a rather excellent question, perhaps degradation of the chemical? Both (+) and (-) iso-lsd are produced when LSD-25 is broken down, if my information is correct(?). Could exposure to light, open air, ect... have potentially damaged some of Sandoz's batches, even in a professional laboratory working with this new chemical could have left some room for error?

I've also read (but never seen a source) for a claim that depending on route of synthase and conditions LSD crystallizes in a variety of manners, some degrading in crystal form, others not. Does anyone have any insight on this? If so, could the crystalline structure perhaps be a key factor in this conundrum?




Adding: I had not seen Post #42, I will refer there now.

 

[bluedolphin1111]

I can only speak for myself.

I have taken LSD two or three hundred times. I have usually been in circles that were well enough connected and I was trusted enough where I knew what kind of LSD it was. What crystal it came from. So the vast majority of the LSD I've ever taken I actually have a vague idea of the purity or at least what it's supposed purity was supposedly.

My experience has been that LSD from the same batch, or same crystal released that same season, pretty much always felt remarkably similar. Of course the trips were different if I was doing different things or thought about different topics... but the overall feel, push, and even visual nature of the drug was remarkably similar.

Variations from batch to batch I however found quite variable. There are a few times I wondered if I had perhaps taken another Lysergamide, but I have undoubtably never mistaken anything like DOx or nBOME or 5-meo-AMT or anything sold on blotter over the years as LSD. I have only ever had "legit" LSD; or, on rare occasion, blotters with no substance on them at all.

That said, I feel I am very sensitive to physical effects of psychedelics. LSD which I knew was fresh and pure felt fresh and pure. My friends also thought it felt fresh and pure. LSD that I knew was Tornado Juice felt crappy but still delivered a powerful mental trip.

I haven't a hard time at all believing that impure LSD leads to a less enjoyable, more tense and "rough" feeling physical trip. This rough physical trip can spill over into the mental trip if you're too focused on your body feeling weird.

This is just my experience... from someone who could eat 10 hits of "fresh, white" LSD and feel great physically, or 1 hit of "Lavender, or Brown (or similar low grade)" crystal and feel physically tense every time. My experience was repeatable and I feel I took this experiment far enough to be firmly convinced of what I am saying.


-----

Also, someone above me said that you get 3 kinds of LSD.
1. 95%+ purity
2. 95%+ purity diluted
3. Fake LSD

This isn't true at all, it's fairly common knowledge that LSD can be as bad as 70% pure or worse and still flood the market. The midwest had a bunch of this very low purity LSD about 3 years ago in liquid form. If you get liquid that isn't even remotely clear and the person selling it doesn't want to tell you what kind of crystal it is, you might just have some bathtub-quality LSD on your hands. It still goes around.

White (fluff, needlepoint, criss, whatever) is generally 90%+ pure
Silver 80-85 from what I've heard
Lavender is in the upper 70s

And there is crappy stuff below that. Of course there are many other names for crystal too I'm not trying to have an all inclusive list just saying there is quite a bit of variability in purity of common types of LSD.

 

[Anon0631]

^ and how have you controlled for placebo effect?

You ask a rather excellent question, perhaps degradation of the chemical? Both (+) and (-) iso-lsd are produced when LSD-25 is broken down, if my information is correct(?).

Your information isn't correct. Degradation products include d-iso-LSD and lumi-LSD. No l-iso-LSD should be present.

 

[Psichedelic]

Thank you for clarifying, I included that question mark as open for revised information. Let me amend:

Could degradation of Sandoz's LSD into d-iso-LSD and lumi-LSD in crystalline/liquid be the cause of this?

As for the input by Blue Dolphin: Personal experience shows the same, "lavender" grade LSD is different than "fluff" in high. My body has always felt different when under the influence of lavender when compared to "fluff". Connection to how the LSD crystallized?

 

[Anon0631]

And again. How have you ruled out placebo?

 

[Incunabula]

And again. How have you ruled out placebo?

Placebo/set and setting argument only has any validity at all, if you didn't "experience" what blue dolphin writes about.
Personaly I can totally recognise what he's talking about, because my own experience is the same. And I am 100% confident that I could spot some of the different blotters I currently have in a blind test. Wether you believe it or not, I don't care My claim will be just that, a wild, unscientific claim.

I think that "placebo/set and setting" argument is turning the blind eye, to the well known fact that it's a mystery that a lot of people really can feel the difference between different chrystals. Some people can't, of cause, but these same people can hardly feel the difference between 2CC and 2CB either.

it's a pointless discussion, in my opinion, because the "placebo" people can say so, and the other camp can say the other, but in the end, getting a scientific scope on this particular twist is beyond this thread.

Also, if it's just placebo effect, isn't ALL discussion about various drugs effects completely pointless, and we might as well close bluelight, because apparently we can't trust our own experience (mind) at all.

When it comes to "dirty" acid, I am not sure I understand, do people find this "dirty" feeling to be recuring with the same batch? I personally never had any bodyload or even vasoconstriction on LSD so that's why I ask.

I could see it as plausible that some kind of unknown mechanism in the brain, something with the receptors, somehow was responsible for sometimes causing bodyload, nausea etc in certain people when taking LSD.
Making it otherwise unconnected to both the LSD quality, and state of mind of the person.

 

[sekio]

The other isomers and degradation products of LSD are not active. The crystal structure doesn't matter either, LSD tartrate dissolves readily in water, saliva etc no matter if it's crystallised from methanol or benzene.

Original Sandoz LSD was stored in solution made with distilled water in sealed brown glass ampules, likely purged under nitrogen or argon. These would last essentially indefinitely, because LSD needs light (blocked by the dark glass) to react with water and form lumi-LSD. So we can reasonably assume that recently made Sandoz LSD (when it was around) would not have degraded appreciably; much less so if it was distributed in dry tablets. Erowid reports that people opened and consumed some 55 year old Sandoz acid and it was just as potent as "fresh cooked" stuff.

According to the molecular structure of lysergic acid, four isomers of LSD are possible. All four have been synthesized and tested. The diethylamide of l-lysergic acid as well as the analogous derivatives of d- and l-isolysergic acid are practically ineffective, being about one thousand times weaker than d-LSD. [...] Saturation of the double bond by one molecule of water under the influence of light yields the compound listed as lumi-LSD, which is completely inactive.

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/122/1/124.abstract

I think a lot of people are forgetting that the psychedelic experience, in general, is very prone to suggestion and easily influenced by the expectations of the subject. If you expect that you're going to have a bad trip, you're far more likely to have one than someone who expects to feel a cosmic unity. If you're young, you've never done LSD before, and the only thing people have told you is that you'll "get fucked up and see things" you will have a very different experience than an experienced and educated individual who uses psychedelics for introspection and creative purposes.

Anecdotally - experiments with LSD and other serotonergic drugs have shown that something as simple as suggesting nausea as a possible side effect correlates very highly with the observation of that effect. (i.e. people who don't know nausea is a possible side effect will generally not feel sick, and if you warn someone they might get nauseous on an acid come up - they will likely get nauseous).

Erowid even has a discussion on this topic. They point out that a lot of people would feel disappointed if they knew Sandoz LSD was essentially the same thing as really well made street blotter, it sort of takes the magic away.

Also, if it's just placebo effect, isn't ALL discussion about various drugs effects completely pointless, and we might as well close bluelight, because apparently we can't trust our own experience (mind) at all.

Nice slippery slope. The point he was trying to get across is that expectations you hold when dosing are part of the mindset.

You cannot discount set and setting. Most people don't want to buy impure drugs, and assume because it's impure that whatever isn't the drug must be harmful. What if the 30% impurity in the "lavender fluff" is tartaric acid (i.e. cream of tartar), sugar, or salt?

TL;DR: The degradation and synthesis impurities of LSD are essentially inactive, so what explains the side effects? Occam's razor would suggest that it's the expectations of the drug-taker.

 

[infantannihilator]

Now now, just how does one define a professional drug user?