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

[Psychonautical]

Some kid, thats right i said Kid
ordered DOC off the internet went to an art store, and printed his own blotter paper.
Went around the town selling it as acid, sold some to this girl i know.

Basically to make a long story short 4 hours after taking 1 and nothing happening she decided to take the other 2. a 112 pound girl should not be on over 6mg of DOC for her first time.

To Make a long story short Cardiac Arrest and A Summer in the psych ward... *nods*

She was chasing birds waving a magical stick and proclaiming she could capture spirits in Gem Stones...

 

[SKL]

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

Where are you getting these figures?

And "laced with amphetamine" is mythological.

good for east coast

There is plenty of good and cheap L out here, thank you very much

making a comeback

And LSD is always "making a comeback" or in a drought ... all of that is market manipulation, plain and simple, to maximize the profits for the people at the top of the pyramid.

 

[psood0nym]

I was not aware of these shifts in the LSD market. It seems strange considering that the analysis has verified that blotters sold as LSD overwhelmingly do, in fact, contain LSD and no other psychoactives. Especially since it's apparently been this way for so long so consistently.

Has there been some federal regulatory overhaul in the chemistry industry or something recently that would force chemists to make alternate lysergamides? Presumably this kind of change in chemical availability did not occur for all those hundreds of blotters between 1976 and 1986 and 1997 and 2003 since these alternate lysergamides were not being produced during those periods.

So you're saying that now, finally and just in the past few years, people are starting to make actual "bad" acid? That's annoying.

 

[SKL]

If you are making something without a diethylamide in it, you don't need to be fucked to get diethylamine. I won't go further into synth-discussion territory because it's something that's relevant to probably on a handful of people on the face of the earth -- a fraternity that I am nowhere close to being a member of, but I did run across some very interesting GC/MS data recently this year.

NSFW:

NSFW:

^from a blotter that feels pretty much like LSD, but is not LSD.

 

[SKL]

I would add that some of these analogues are not necessarily "bad", in fact, in some ways, they may be subjectively a better experience -- in my subjective experience and the reports of some others, they are quicker and shorter acting and less anxiogenic/psychotomimetic, which may have to do with a greater affinity for 5ht1a. rats seem to like it as much as L. see Monte et al., J Med Chem 38;958-966 (1995), Nichols, Heffeter Rev Psychedelic Res, 2;80-88 (2004))

 

[psood0nym]

I wouldn't mind trying them either, hell, a shorter acting LSD-alike would be great, I'd just prefer I was sold it as what it is.

 

[SKL]

Actually, you probably have tried them, without even knowing it.

I'm not sure that I could tell the difference in a blind taste test.

But I know that stuff is out there in decent quantity.

The chemicals in question:

NSFW:

 

[DwayneHoover]

I was not aware of these shifts in the LSD market. It seems strange considering that the analysis has verified that blotters sold as LSD overwhelmingly do, in fact, contain LSD and no other psychoactives. Especially since it's apparently been this way for so long so consistently.

Really? I know there have been several tests done on a good number of samples over the last 20-30 years. But have they been done consistently and continuously? Have any been done in the last 5 years when DOx Br-DrFLY have become so much more available?

 

[SKL]

Well, DOx/5-MeO-AMT/Br-DrFLY &c. tend to only wind up in backwater markets from small time people looking to scam ... like this shitbird:

Some kid, thats right i said Kid
ordered DOC off the internet went to an art store, and printed his own blotter paper.
Went around the town selling it as acid, sold some to this girl i know.

Basically to make a long story short 4 hours after taking 1 and nothing happening she decided to take the other 2. a 112 pound girl should not be on over 6mg of DOC for her first time.

To Make a long story short Cardiac Arrest and A Summer in the psych ward... *nods*

She was chasing birds waving a magical stick and proclaiming she could capture spirits in Gem Stones...

The N-alkyl-LAA's, on the oher hand which take a good deal of effort to make, are distributed on a more serious level, and more widespread

 

[psood0nym]

Really? I know there have been several tests done on a good number of samples over the last 20-30 years. But have they been done consistently and continuously? Have any been done in the last 5 years when DOx Br-DrFLY have become so much more available?

I'm sure there have been more blotters infused with non-lysergemides since highly potent alternative psychedelics have become more widely available. But, again, something like DOx sold as acid isn't "bad acid," it's DOx sold as acid, and therefore isn't relevant to the question being posed in this thread. "Bad" acid is a cocktail of chemicals including but not exclusive to LSD resulting from an intended LSD synthesis that has psychoactive effects different from those that would have occurred with an equivalent dosage of LSD and only LSD.

The alternate lysergemides SomeKindaLove is talking about are sort of "bad" acid because they involve many of the same synthesis steps as LSD, I assume, and because they are so closely related in structure and effect -- but in their case they are intended by the chemist to be what they are: non-LSD lysergemides.

So, SomeKindaLove, regarding those batches of non-LSD lysergemides that you have analytical data to back the identity of, do all of them have a different onset and duration than LSD, i.e. is there still a way to get an idea whether or not you have something related to LSD but not, or are the time profiles so similar there's no hope of differentiation without the kind of analysis most people don't have access to now and ever will?

 

[surf.shaman]

he said they were basically identical to LSD

 

[killo]

I'm sure there have been more blotters infused with non-lysergemides since highly potent alternative psychedelics have become more widely available. But, again, something like DOx sold as acid isn't "bad acid," it's DOx sold as acid, and therefore isn't relevant to the question being posed in this thread. "Bad" acid is a cocktail of chemicals including but not exclusive to LSD resulting from an intended LSD synthesis that has psychoactive effects different from those that would have occurred with an equivalent dosage of LSD and only LSD.


So, SomeKindaLove, regarding those batches of non-LSD lysergemides that you have analytical data to back the identity of, do all of them have a different onset and duration than LSD, i.e. is there still a way to get an idea whether or not you have something related to LSD but not, or are the time profiles so similar there's no hope of differentiation without the kind of analysis most people don't have access to now and ever will?

Think outside the box. What if most of the acid considered "bad acid" is actually people getting psychedelics with similarities to LSD but feel more "toxic, harsh on the body, comedown" compared to LSD of course. So people think they got bad LSD and since psychedelics ARE subjective it's sometimes hard to tell you got another drug altogether. I know MANY circles of people in my area who thought they were getting LSD. Only to turn out after testing some of the stuff they were taking I had to inform everyone it WAS NOT LSD.

Probably DOI, DOC, DOB, 5MEO-AMT(yes can fit on blotters and gel tabs)

A lot of stuff in our area that is bunk is usually always on blotters or in geltabs. Actual LSD in Texas is almost exclusively in liquid form dropped onto candy or sugarcubes. Especially central TX. I've noticed that blotters and geltabs were never good in comparison and lacked something. In retrospect they never were LSD....
Later on after my friend took some "real deal" LSD he was like "LOL wow the last 3 batches we had were bunk I just realized it." It was lacking the psychedelic /mental component/ boundary dissolution of this stuff, this is so mind altering in comparison and doesn't feel "Dirty" or "speedy". Just clean energy that I can channel."

 

[Matsuo Munefusa.]

iso-LSD and lumi-LSD both active degraded components of LSD (exposure to H20 and light). affinity for peripheral receptors are greater???just guessing./

 

[psood0nym]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be thinking about when I get outside the box. Break down the box for me (careful, it's double corrugated). In post 10 the OP clarified that he or she was asking about impurities in addition to LSD, not whole substitutions of different chemicals.

Then there's this issue (taken from article 1, linked to earlier):

One of the primary arguments against the premise that differences in LSD experiences are the result of differences in quality of material has come from people we've spoken to who have distributed and aliquoted acid in the past. One such person described how some recipients of his LSD would go on at length about how distinct and how much better one type of blotter was than another. Yet, often, both types had been aliquoted by this chemist on the same day, from the same batch of liquid, onto similar blotter paper bearing different designs.

EDIT: The point being that our experiences with the same dosages of the same chemicals vary far too much to rely on qualitative impressions. Duration to onset and total duration can also vary, but in general are still far more reliable indicators of what you took than qualitative impressions (lucid, speedy, achy, visual, etc. qualities all fluctuate based on innumerable interacting factors in the complex system of a human body; we are more complicated than chemicals, so we should suspect that WE and not any slight variations in the intrinsic properties of the chemical(s) are the source of the variation in experience).

he said they were basically identical to LSD

No he didn't, he said:

these analogues are not necessarily "bad", in fact, in some ways, they may be subjectively a better experience -- in my subjective experience and the reports of some others, they are quicker and shorter acting and less anxiogenic/psychotomimetic, which may have to do with a greater affinity for 5ht1a. rats seem to like it as much as L.

Then he posted drawings of the 2 lysergemides he was referring to. My question was regarding whether both of them have the same time profile, or whether he has information about the the time profile of just one of them. For example, perhaps a common dose of one of them comes on in 30 minutes on average and lasts 4 hours, whereas the other comes on in 30 minutes and lasts 6 hours. Both of these hypothetical cases would fit the description of "shorter acting" than LSD, but the latter would be far more difficult do distinguish from LSD due to it's more LSD-like duration.

 

[psood0nym]

iso-LSD and lumi-LSD both active degraded components of LSD (exposure to H20 and light). affinity for peripheral receptors are greater???just guessing./

From the same article 1:

Iso-LSD is considered non-psychoactive. Papers in the late 1950s reported low or no activity for iso-LSD, including a very interesting report published by Sandoz comparing activities of several "lysergic acid derivatives".11 Albert Hofmann reported having tried iso-LSD at doses up to 500 µg and found no psychoactivity. More recent rat experiments have found that rats given iso-LSD in a discrimination study don't respond as though it's d-LSD.12 It is an open question, however, whether high levels of iso-LSD could possibly alter the effects of LSD, either through activity at a different serotonin receptor type than d-LSD triggers or through some other mechanism.

As far as we know, no research has been done to determine whether isomers of LSD can potentially reduce or alter the receptor binding or otherwise modify the pharmacodynamics of d-LSD. At this point, iso-LSD is mostly believed to be inert and simply represents "wasted" lysergic material since it is in the wrong configuration to be psychoactive.

It seems highly unlikely that if it's inactive up to 500 ug that the potential indirect effects of iso-LSD on LSD receptor binding or metabolism would result in distinct alterations of experience in any kind of double-blind statistically significant kind of way.

The last HPLC + UV graph (Fig. 4) shows a lab sample of LSD freebase that had been stored under nitrogen for more than ten years. The lab said that the sample had started as extremely pure d-LSD but did not have any record of previous analysis results. We can see that the number of secondary peaks is far lower than with the brown microdot. The three tallest peaks appear to coincide with the three tallest peaks in the brown dot, and the 9.0 peak was confirmed to have the correct UV absorption pattern for d-LSD. The lab believed the peak at 9.6 to be iso-LSD based on the UV and mass spectrums.

The rest of the small peaks in that area of the graph are likely other lysergic-structure chemicals, although without doing work to characterize exactly what those peaks represent, it's impossible to say what they are. Chemists we've talked to suggest they might include other isomers of LSD and material such as lumi-LSD (LSD with an additional oxygen) or potentially unconverted ergotamine.

The presence of lumi-LSD in most LSD syntheses is likely too small to make a difference, whether it's active or not.
EDIT: This pic is not the Fig 4 referred to about, but of the brown microdot (not as old).

 

[Malmo]

Quote:

One of the primary arguments against the premise that differences in LSD experiences are the result of differences in quality of material has come from people we've spoken to who have distributed and aliquoted acid in the past. One such person described how some recipients of his LSD would go on at length about how distinct and how much better one type of blotter was than another. Yet, often, both types had been aliquoted by this chemist on the same day, from the same batch of liquid, onto similar blotter paper bearing different designs.

It's like with placebos.
Bigger pills with stronger colors "works" better then small white ones.

 

[surf.shaman]

No he didn't, he said:

he said:
"I'm not sure that I could tell the difference in a blind taste test."

 

[psood0nym]

^Oh, I see. I can't tell from "he said they were the same" that you also mean "qualitatively speaking only and disregarding any information about onset time or duration". If they are both substantially shorter then you can still tell the difference from LSD using the time of duration.

 

[SKL]

My question was regarding whether both of them have the same time profile, or whether he has information about the the time profile of just one of them. For example, perhaps a common dose of one of them comes on in 30 minutes on average and lasts 4 hours, whereas the other comes on in 30 minutes and lasts 6 hours. Both of these hypothetical cases would fit the description of "shorter acting" than LSD, but the latter would be far more difficult do distinguish from LSD due to it's more LSD-like duration.

I think they are noticeably shorter, but not by a very great deal, to the point that I still am not convinced I could tell the difference on a blind taste test, due to the utterly subjective nature of the experience. I do think there is a decent chance I could. I have certainly taken "LSD" that I know to the extent that I can know based on qualitative, expriential factors, to be an ergoloid but not the diethylamide; however, if I were actually in a double blind type situation I can't say that I'm confident I could discern between them, tripping being as subjective as it is (which is a huge factor in the clean/dirty acid question anyway). In any meaningful way to differentiate between the 2 would probably require GC/MS.

Hence,Malmo is correct when he says --

One of the primary arguments against the premise that differences in LSD experiences are the result of differences in quality of material has come from people we've spoken to who have distributed and aliquoted acid in the past. One such person described how some recipients of his LSD would go on at length about how distinct and how much better one type of blotter was than another. Yet, often, both types had been aliquoted by this chemist on the same day, from the same batch of liquid, onto similar blotter paper bearing different designs.

But that does not mean that different lysergamides dont exist,and different preperations of the same lysergamides might yield physiologically/neurologically active byproducts

Think outside the box. What if most of the acid considered "bad acid" is actually people getting psychedelics with similarities to LSD but feel more "toxic, harsh on the body, comedown" compared to LSD of course. So people think they got bad LSD and since psychedelics ARE subjective it's sometimes hard to tell you got another drug altogether. I know MANY circles of people in my area who thought they were getting LSD. Only to turn out after testing some of the stuff they were taking I had to inform everyone it WAS NOT LSD.

I think most experienced psychedelic users could differentiate between DOx, 5-MeO-AMT, and LSD; however, I think it's a more or less open question how reliably they could differentiate between LSD and what I'll call "LS?".

But there is always raging debate about the difference between so-called "European" and "American" strains of LSD (although market wise there is plenty of overlap). I posit that this is the answer to that debate, at least in part.

 

[DwayneHoover]

Even if an "impurity" is not present in enough quantity to have an effect of their own does not mean their presence is irrelevant.

This is a misunderstanding of complex issues of pharmacodynamics.

A tiny "ineffective" amount of ImpurityX could well be enough to synergize with or alter the effects of MainSubstanceY, by messing with how it interacts with receptors, or supressing the effects of a bodily enzyme just enough for the main chem to be absorbed significantly faster.

Not psychedelic in an nature but the point is the same: In large enough amounts certain Protease Inhibitors are antiviral against HIV. But they tend to have too many toxic sode-effects. Well they discovered that the protease inhibition also had quite potent effects on certain human enzyme systems (the source of some of their toxicity in fact) so the clever bastard went "AHA!" and started using that "side effect" to their advantage... there are some protease inhibitors that they add in amounts far too small to be effectively antiviral to a pill that contains a small enough dose of some other normally toxic drug it to be kept around inside the cells longer and not be expelled by the inhibited enzyme for long enough for the main drug to do its work against the virus! But, there's a well small enough amount of it around that it does not damage the liver and so is safe enough to take,... the trace amount of the PI keeps it inside the cell where its real work is at, and away from the liver, so they can use alot less of it! Pretty damned ingenious I thought when I read that.

Effect of (X + Y) >> Effect of (X alone) + Effect of (Y alone).

Similar "synergy" or cross-interaction could be happening with these supposedly "too low to have any effect" LSD impurities, could it not?