'Good', 'Bad', 'Clean', ACID

[mcozire]

Hi there,

I realise the only way to finding out if acid is good or bad or clean is actually down to taking the acid in question, and then after the trip deciding on what it was like.

However, I would like some one to help me with the whole 'needlepoint' 'amber' crystal malarkey.

Is it true that there is some acid out there that is 'purer' / 'cleaner' than other types of acid?

Could not so pure/clean acid be described as bad acid?


What effects can you attribute to 'bad' acid?

I know sometimes on acid I have felt slightly odd in my body, sometimes a my muscles might feel stiff, or my stomach may be a bit unsettled.. is this due to bad acid?

How would you describe clean acid?

I would have to think that the word clean acid may come from a trip that goes well, where the overall feeling giving to the tripper is that off slight euphoria, crystal clean almost high definition visuals, which gives the illusion to the tripper that its 'clean' acid, where as in fact someone on the same stuff could be having a not so great time and convince himself that its dirty acid??

*However, I must note I did have what some would call (even I still do) 'clean' acid, in england (liquid). Every one was raving on about it saying how good it was, the visuals off it were very placid, very high definition, as if you almost didnt know you were tripping, but you very much were so, as it if was just stuck to your eyes or something.

So I guess what I would like cleared up is,

Whats bad acid?
Whats clean/good acid?
What is all the mumbo jumbo with the different types of LSD crystals
Can/does some LSD have impurities in it?

I read briefly elsewhere here that the only difference between good and bad is simply the LSD25 molecule decomposing. As in LSD25 is LSD25 and that's that.

Many thanks for your time.

 

[TNT Explosion]

the brown acid that is circulating around us isn't too good. it is suggested that you stay away from that. of course it's your own trip, so be my guest

I'm no expert but I'd logically assume there is varying degrees of purity based on the quality of the synthesis/knowledge of the chemist making it etc.

 

[invert]

Presumably the only relevant impurities would be ones that could be as potent or more so than LSD itself, right? So that must limit it quite a lot, presumably? Also, one should bear in mind that it's possible for a batch of LSD to get a bad reputation that is self fulfilling, given the sometimes rather powerful effects of one's expectations about a trip.

 

[TNT Explosion]

Also, one should bear in mind that it's possible for a batch of LSD to get a bad reputation that is self fulfilling, given the sometimes rather powerful effects of one's expectations about a trip.

yeah it pisses me off so much when people buy from the same connect as you and then feel the need to tell you the quality of the acid before you trip.

"yeah that cid was great it was the best trip of my life!!"

"that acid sucked take 10 tabs"

it effects my trip, subconsciously or otherwise.

 

[DwayneHoover]

I guess hearing peoples' takes on how they personally would describe "bad acid" in words might be fairly interesting.

But insofar as whether or not "there really is such a thing" and if so what exactly it might be....

This has been hashed and rehashed ad-infinitum over and over and over again for 30 years.

Is there a resource or document or special thread about this we can just point to when this is asked, instead of everyone having to spend time retyping their same old fixated positions/viewpoints yet again, every several weeks, trotting out the same tired old arguments one way or the other, then others re-trot out THEIR same old rebuttals for the 100th time?

Nothing against the poster, its a natural thing to wonder when you start doing LSD, just thinking of efficiency of everyone's time, so it is spent posting on more fruitful and interesting threads. It's such a distracting and unanswerable topic of debate. There are always alot of strong opinions that inevitably degenerate into squabbling ("I am absolutely certain there no such thing as bad acid, here's why etc etc!!!", "Yes there is, I am absolutely certain, and here's why etc etc!!!", "No there isn't, you stupid git!", "Yes there is, you malodorous heap of parrot droppings!")

Yes, we all love a good argument, but every time this comes up I always feel... <groan> oh no, not this again!

Monty Python - Argument Clinic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&NR=1

 

[SKL]

There is LSD, there is non-LSD (5-MeO-AMT, DOx), there are L-alikes (LSM, N-alkyl-LAA's), there is LSD with a variety of unreacted precursors which may or may not be physiologically active. Ehrlich's reagent would differentiate between complex lysergamides and other things, but that is not of much help. These days most of the non-LSD on blotter are probably N-aklyl-LAA's. The DOB/5-MeO-AMT on blotter trend is mostly dead (it was more common during the post-Pickard drought), and DOC/DOI is more often sold as itself unless you are way, way, way at the bottom of the market chain. Ultimately, unless you've got a GC/MS, you will have to rely on your experience and what you are told.

But "needlepoint", "fluff", "silver", "amber", "lavender," etc. is definitely a bunch of bullshit. Just brand names. No more significant than the stamp on a bag of dope or the press of a roll, and even easier misrepresented, just by calling something a name. However LSD crystal has been known to come in a variety of colors from time to time, due to impurities. Incidentally though some of the better acid that I have had some came in liquid form, and was off color, due to the crystal being off color, and it was 72.9% absorbent at 311nm -- which is damn good by retail standards.

EDIT--Transposed some figures

 

[DwayneHoover]

What about Nick Sands probably definitive statement that the Orange Sunshine he and associates produced some 250 million doses of over his active years was in fact NOT LSD-25 at all, but was rather something closely related called ALD-52 which most people found more visual and more pleasantly euphoric than LSD-25?

I wish people would make more of that "fake" acid... I got a chance to buy and do a bunch of "Orange Sunshine" way back when and that shit was niiiiiiice!

 

[SKL]

ALD-52 (N-acetyl-LSD) quickly degrades into LSD both when kept around for any length of time and in the human body.

 

[TNT Explosion]

What about Nick Sands probably definitive statement that the Orange Sunshine he and associates produced some 250 million doses of over his active years was in fact NOT LSD-25 at all, but was rather something closely related called ALD-52

do you have any links regarding this? i'd love to read

 

[mcozire]

Is there a resource or document or special thread about this we can just point to when this is asked, instead of everyone having to spend time retyping their same old fixated positions/viewpoints yet again, every several weeks, trotting out the same tired old arguments one way or the other, then others re-trot out THEIR same old rebuttals for the 100th time?

I think we should aim to to this with this thread.

Try to get as much as a scientific and accurate backround as possible.

Perhaps if each poster did something like this.

1):
The poster gives as much
a) Scientific backing as they can possibly find as to what they believe is responsible for good/clean acid.
b) Or give knowledge they themselves have acquired from being high up in the 'industry' or have heard from people high up in the industry.

So basically anybody with a 'well I think,' should leave out section one.

2)
a) The poster gives as much anecdotal evidence as to why they THINK there is bad acid.
b) What effects people THINK they have gotten from bad acid.
c) Discussion on the 'mind over matter' situation. Bad acid being a state of mind during the trip and a conclusion there after?

3)Discussion/Comment on the synthesis of LSD and the 'impurities' after creating LSD leading to bad acid. Re: If any impurities/by products are created during synthesis, are they even active at such a low dose as to create any effects other than that of the LSD?



DwayneHoover I appreciate your interest in creating a sticky for this question, I think it would be a great idea. I myself spent some time searching this thread for a decent answer and never really found one that was very much directly on topic.

I think if we could guide this thread in a more detailed, on topic, informative direction, we could see some fruitful observations.

At the end of your post you kind of shrug your shoulders at the question and dismiss it as unanswerable. However a believe it is not so unanswerable, I believe that some one should have the knowledge out there to tell us that yes it is possible for there to be bad or not so great acid out there due to, impurities during manufacturing, because of the molecule degrading?

If this thread was to be kept on topic, and presented in a constructive manor, somewhat similar to how I have the sections laid out above, with constructive arguments rather than bickering we should see something quite interesting and informative develop. At the very least we would have a go to thread for the very question, that so many new and old LSD users may want to learn more about.. even if it IS unanswerable.

 

[psood0nym]

The impurities are mostly unreacted "clavines" and iso-LSD, neither of which to my knowledge is active at the dosages present in even dozens of hits of LSD. Erowid has a page where they say chemists have told them putting the same quantity of the same LSD on different prints often results in customers demanding one over the other because one is so much more lucid or dirty than the other.

They also had an informal test where 70 people experienced with the street acid of the 90s were given comparable doses of ultra pure "delsyd". Most people said there was no difference between it and the stuff on prints from the 1990s, and many said they felt pressured to say it was better than the stuff from the 1990s because of the mythos surrounding it. (I'm convinced the reason LSD is thought to be so superior to all RCs to the degree it is is this mythos informing experience and the suggestive effect of its illegality and relative exclusivity compared to most other psychedelics i.e. you need elusive blackmarket connections to get the real good shit.) Evidently the quality differences between different batches are insignificant for experience; it's all about quantity and mindset.

Anyone can find these articles on Erowid's LSD page. I've linked to them before, but I'm not sure where exactly they are at the moment.

Also, all this indicates the 1960s LSD was no better than today, there was just more on the hits and greater cultural embrace of the experience. Stories of LSD only being "real" back then can be attributed to this and to old hippies' selective memory and romanticism.

 

[mcozire]

Hi SomeKindaLove!

There is LSD, there is non-LSD (5-MeO-AMT, DOx), there are L-alikes (LSM, N-alkyl-LAA's), there is LSD with a variety of unreacted precursors which may or may not be physiologically active. Ehrlich's reagent would differentiate between complex lysergamides and other things, but that is not of much help. These days most of the non-LSD on blotter are probably N-aklyl-LAA's. The DOB/5-MeO-AMT on blotter trend is mostly dead (it was more common during the post-Pickard drought), and DOC/DOI is more often sold as itself unless you are way, way, way at the bottom of the market chain. Ultimately, unless you've got a GC/MS, you will have to rely on your experience and what you are told.

Ok I understand what your saying here. But im not so much wondering what might be on tabs other than acid. I am talking about taking acid definitely, just trying to differentiate between good bad, excellent lsd.

However LSD crystal has been known to come in a variety of colors from time to time, due to impurities. Incidentally though some of the better acid that I have had some came in liquid form, and was off color, due to the crystal being off color, and it was 92.7% absorbent at 311nm -- which is damn good by retail standards.

Can you expand this section a bit?

You say, 'better acid', in your own subjective terms how would you describe what your are calling 'better acid' being better?

Also what do you mean by "92.7% absorbent at 311nm -- which is damn good by retail standards."

Many thanks!

 

[greenmeanies]

311nm is in the ultraviolet range, so it seems he's relating the spectrophotographic absorbance of his drug to its supposed purity. but that is only an indicator of concentration, and you can't read absorbance directly from a blotter for any kind of quantitative work.

lysergides fluoresce brilliant blue/purple when hit with ultraviolet (black) light. this fluorescence definitely results in the degradation of the active compounds into their inactive isomers.

 

[DwayneHoover]

Well this really doesnt belong in this thread, since this thread is about "bad" acid, and from what has been said, everyone really LOVED the ALD-52, if it even existed that is. See what I mean about this whole discussion being annoyingly futile? Oh well, what the fuck... here goes:

Googled: "nick sands" "ald-52"

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C...rceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q="nick+sands"+"ald-52"

LOTS of results, see for yourself. This thread is particularly interesting:

Orange Sunshine - Mind States - tribe.net
Jonathan Ott claims that orange sunshine was actually ALD-52 (equipotent to ... I seem to reacll that they were 250 mics each and were made by Nick Sands. ...
http://mindstates.tribe.net/thread/69a8fe79-39c2-4073-a2d8-a04a12ea26f2

A still live thread here, which includes a long list of various LSD relatives/derivatives:

ALD 52: Better then acid‎ - Jun 2, 2005
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...IoATAB&usg=AFQjCNEItxjnATT3OxmGjMrRS5C7McDoPw

A thread in the archive here:

Acid in America 2K8 - Page 13 - Bluelight
Apr 17, 2008 ... It's my understanding that though ALD-52 was made and probably still is, the main reason it came into popular culture was that Nick Sands ..
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=357673&page=13

which includes this, but it's so vague that I am still not sure if Sands is saying the Orange Sunshine really WAS ALD-52, or if that was just a story they were telling:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCfratter
It's my understanding that though ALD-52 was made and probably still is, the main reason it came into popular culture was that Nick Sands and Tim Scully tried to say that what they produced was ALD-52 rather than LSD in their trials in San Francisco in 1973 and therefore that it wasn't illegal since the government didn't know what it was. That's my understanding from reading the book Acid Dreams.
and even they admited that they made plain ol' LSD-25.​

This is inner-resting:

PT | Phish | Message Board | LSD: Where has it gone-Pickard LSD bust
Sep 21, 2010 ... Nick Sands made 1/4 billion hits of Orange Sunshine and other "brands" ... In 2003 and 2004 what I believe to be ALD-52 (an analogue of LSD) ...
http://38.112.31.51/phish/boards_thread.cgi?threadID=2457663&page=4

...and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

 

[psood0nym]

Screw it, here's the links to the pages I referred to in my last post (Make these part of the sticky or whatever):
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_article1.shtml
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_article2.shtml
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_article3.shtml

The data we have reviewed so far indicates that the vast majority of substances sold as LSD are, in fact, LSD, with no other psychoactive chemicals or adulterating substances. Out of the 134 blotters analyzed by the DEA between 1976 and 1986, only one contained DOB instead of acid. Similarly, out of the 2,189 samples analyzed by the INT between 1997 and 2003, only one did not contain LSD; instead, it contained amphetamine, methampethamine, and temazepam. Out of 2,323 samples, therefore, there was a 0.08% percentage of adulteration or misrepresentation.

 

[DwayneHoover]

That must be a little old, psood0nym... in http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showpost.php?p=5924857&postcount=309 SomeKindaLove posted:


The continuing saga of non-Acid in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drug Enforcement Administration
The Kentucky State Police Western Laboratory Branch (Madisonville) recently received a single white square of blotter paper, wrapped in foil, suspected LSD (photo not taken). The exhibit was acquired by the Paducah Police from a cooperating source. The square was approximately ¼-inch by ¼-inch, and was unmarked. Analysis of a methanolic extract by GC/MS, however, indicated not LSD but rather a mixture of 4-chloro-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (DOC) and 4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (DOI). The DOC and DOI were not formally quantitated, but were present in a moderate loading in a 2.2 : 1 ratio, based on a secondary GC/FID analysis. This was the first submission of either DOC or DOI to the laboratory.

AND SO.... etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

See, as I said: STILL NO "CONCLUSION"! (hint - there never will be)

 

[SKL]

The data we have reviewed so far indicates that the vast majority of substances sold as LSD are, in fact, LSD, with no other psychoactive chemicals or adulterating substances. Out of the 134 blotters analyzed by the DEA between 1976 and 1986, only one contained DOB instead of acid. Similarly, out of the 2,189 samples analyzed by the INT between 1997 and 2003, only one did not contain LSD; instead, it contained amphetamine, methampethamine, and temazepam. Out of 2,323 samples, therefore, there was a 0.08% percentage of adulteration or misrepresentation.

Ah, but the market has changed in the past 7 years.

Hi SomeKindaLove!



Ok I understand what your saying here. But im not so much wondering what might be on tabs other than acid. I am talking about taking acid definitely, just trying to differentiate between good bad, excellent lsd.

To a casual user, something like lysergic acid morpholide, or N-(3-pentyl)- or N-(sec-butyl)-lysergamide, all of which have circulated, would likely be very difficult to distinguish from LSD, but nonetheless would result in a qualitatively different experience; this could account for some of the varying "qualities" of LSD which circulates. Also, I strongly suspect that unreacted precusors and reagents, even in the miniscule relevant quantities, might have some psychophysiological effect.

you can't read absorbance directly from a blotter for any kind of quantitative work.
.

But with a known quantity of material in a known amount of solvent, you can get a better idea of purity, which is what I was referring to above; sorry if it was not clear.

 

[psood0nym]

The fact that other drugs are sold as LSD has nothing to do with impurities (what supposedly makes bad LSD bad) in the final synthesis of LSD effecting experience.

Look at this quote from an article written in 1977 by Bruce Eisner:

Many early LSD users later gave up on acid and tried other methods of consciousness-expansion as available LSD became impure. They thought that LSD did not work any more, or blamed their heads, not realizing it was a change in the nature of the actual chemical. Thus, the increasing number of impurities led many people to repress the mystical experiences they had had, and retreat to a comfortable, "cool" conformity. Or they turned to Eastern gurus and Jesus movements.

I suspect that impurities give people body trips (euphoria) rather than the pure mind trips of LSD (ecstasy). People turned to other euphoria-producing drugs (pot is on of these) because street acid fell into the realm of dishonest dealing games and lost the spiritual qualities of LSD. Just the fact that LSD did not work any more led people into attempts to escape from the all-too-static reality via coke, pot, tranquilizers, alcohol and smack.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_writings1.shtml

Now recall that the analysis of the 134 blotters obtained by the DEA showed that they contained no psychoactive adulterants (with a few minor exceptions). Eisner goes on to talk about how LSD is the only real psychedelic "key" and how nobody has really tripped unless they had the 1960s acid. It's self-serving delusion and exclusionism and nothing more. One of those articles I linked to even reports that iso-LSD (the most prominent impurity in LSD synthesis) has been taken up to 100 mg dosage levels with no effect!

This is the disclaimer at the top of the Eisner article:
Erowid Note: [Note: The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and should not be taken as fact without consulting additional references. There are several known errors and/or disputed facts contained. This article is included for historical reference and debate and should not be considered complete nor state of the art information on the subjects it covers.]

 

[SKL]

Presumably the only relevant impurities would be ones that could be as potent or more so than LSD itself, right? So that must limit it quite a lot, presumably? Also, one should bear in mind that it's possible for a batch of LSD to get a bad reputation that is self fulfilling, given the sometimes rather powerful effects of one's expectations about a trip.

I am not totally sold on this argument.

I was discussing this with Nichols, and he suggested impurities in the diethylamine producing compounds that have effect in small doses. This is an area that I don't think any research has been done on.

iso-LSD has been taken in the milligram range in man and not had any effect thoughl.

PT | Phish | Message Board | LSD: Where has it gone-Pickard LSD bust
Sep 21, 2010 ... Nick Sands made 1/4 billion hits of Orange Sunshine and other "brands" ... In 2003 and 2004 what I believe to be ALD-52 (an analogue of LSD) ...
http://38.112.31.51/phish/boards_thread.cgi?threadID=2457663&page=4

lol PT

The fact that other drugs are sold as LSD has nothing to do with impurities (what supposedly makes bad LSD bad) in the final synthesis of LSD effecting experience.

This is true, but things like the N-pentyl and N-sec-butyl lysergamides are being actively distributed as LSD in the mass market (I have GC/MS data to back this up), to the point where I'm quite sure there are people who think they have taken LSD but have only really taken LS?.

Look at this quote from an article written in 1977 by Bruce Eisner:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_writings1.shtml

Now recall that the analysis of the 134 blotters obtained by the DEA showed that they contained no psychoactive adulterants (with a few minor exceptions). Eisner goes on to talk about how LSD is the only real psychedelic "key" and how nobody has really tripped unless they had the 1960s acid. It's self-serving delusion and exclusionism and nothing more. One of those articles I linked to even reports that iso-LSD (the most prominent impurity in LSD synthesis) has been taken up to 100 mg dosage levels with no effect!

This is the disclaimer at the top of the Eisner article:
Erowid Note: [Note: The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and should not be taken as fact without consulting additional references. There are several known errors and/or disputed facts contained. This article is included for historical reference and debate and should not be considered complete nor state of the art information on the subjects it covers.]

Eisner is full of shit as are the old hippies.

Good LSD today is good LSD any day, but today, a lot of stuff circulates as "LSD" that just ain't. For various reasons, other chemicals are easier to come by, and have circulated in mass quantities recently. This could account for a lot of the qualitative differences between different sorts of LSD that are available.

And as for what I consider "better" acid, It's entierly about subjective experience, but certain products that I've been able to sampel have been unfiromly better than others.

And btw I transposed some figures above. It was 72.9% not 92.7% which is still damn good for retail

 

[ChemicalSmiles]

I have had acid in the midwest and south. I dont know where it originated from. I have taken it about 12 times.... the last time was the best by far. It was probablhy 90-100 mics and COMPLETELY clean. NO ANXIETY at ALL. I started with 1.5 then 90 minutes later took 1.5 more and and hour later took 1 more, total experience last 18 hours... seeing stuff for 15 about.. I know there is more of it going aroudn, you just have to know the right people and demand is outweighing production as of now but I think that could be changing. price is fair considering a hit of fluff is around the price of a footlong sub at subway and 2 does the trick for the night.... That is good for east coast for some thing with medium/high strength and completely pure. 75% of blotters are DOC, RC, or laced with amphetamine even, the shits garbage and cost almost tiwce the cost of the fluff I obtained as of late. LSD is making a comeback slowly and surely, and it finds you. You dont find it as of now... but in 5 years if things continue the way they are maybe it will be as easy to obtain as marijuana and quality will be consistent. Who knows. but unelss its always 70-120 mics of unadulterated LSD-25 the market will stay shady.