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

[greenmeanies]

of course it's the reasonable thing to do. but it's not a scientifically rigorous study until you have a reference standard for determining the "average response" to a "controlled dose" of "pure" LSD.

remember that set and setting play a HUGE role in how a trip feels both physically and psychologically. until you can standardize the dose, any results from tests on "street blotter" will be inconclusive. the only way to standardize the dose would be to have a reference sample of pure LSD in a KNOWN concentration to confirm the potency and purity of whatever blotter you're taking.

 

[psood0nym]

1) Why "must" the discussion be confined to synthesis intended to be LSD? The originator of the thread did not specify that. I am pretty sure he was just referring to when you buy something offered as LSD, but it feels "dirty", what is going on? It could well be a DOx or something else. That's seems well within the definition of the topic's original question.

Because that would be insensible. If someone sold you 5-MeO-MiPT on changa leaves as DMT you wouldn't call it "dirty DMT" would you? You wouldn't say 5-MeO-MiPT is "Good, Bad" or dirty DMT like the thread title asks about acid either -- it would just be 5-MeO-MiPT sold as DMT. Dirty DMT might conceivably include a DMT extraction from something like phalaris grass, which contains lots of 5-MeO-DMT, 5-OH-DMT, and plant fats, but even that would be a stretch.

As to your question about the samples analyzed: look at the text I link to to answer your own question. The samples analyzed were seized by the DEA or police and came from two fairly expansive time period ranges and include a few hits that weren't LSD (for example one blotter from the later period included amphetamine). We can be relatively sure the DEA didn't throw away any of the seized blotters because during the time periods they were seized any other active drugs put on blotters would likely consist of controlled substances (e.g. there were no uncontrolled dragon fly compounds then), and therefore be kept as evidence. The study writers included the hits that weren't LSD because one of the questions they set out to answer was whether what is sold as LSD on the street was usually LSD, so, no, they wouldn't omit those results.

So, regarding impure acid these days, since we have given a reason for only including impure syntheses as "bad acid," and because, to our knowledge, the synthesis methods have not radically diverged from those used in the past to produce LSD, we have some rationale for accepting those past results as indicative of the quality of intended LSD synthesized today, and none (at least none that's not far more plausibly explained by other factors) for accepting otherwise.

Also, the quasi-experiment conducted by Erowid of ultra-pure delisyd used by those experienced with 1990s acid linked to previously already provides evidence that there is little subjective difference between 1990s street acid and ultra refined acid, since most people said they noticed no difference, and the fact that everyone was told what they were testing was legendary ultra pure LSD can explain those who did report a difference by appeal to the established difference in variance known to be explained by sheer power of suggestion (for example, numerous studies showing people judge the quality of equivalent goods as higher if they are told it has a higher price than if they are told it has a lower price).

 

[Big)Sky]

Clean LSD to me is usually very light on the body load, very pleasnt feeling, not to insane of a come up, Visuals dont get too intense until about 4 hours into it, right by the peak is when everything comes alive.

 

[Ismene]

Don't you think acid can produce feelings of "clean" and "dirty" all by itself? Or does every dose of "uncontaminated" LSD produce exactly the same "clean" feeling?

Can LSD really only produce one physical sensation? That of being "clean"?

 

[Ismene]

I don't know where you guys get your claims about these extremely tiny chances of this being a chemical or pharmacological phenomenon... but they sound a bit arrogant to me to presume something like that just because it has not been discovered, and it is always easy to blame suggestibility and placebo.

I think the problem is LSD causes such massively varying effects that it can explain all the "feelings" you mention quite adequately all by itself. To go searching for mysterious compounds that no-one has ever heard of when there's no reason whatsoever to presume they are even on the blotter seems a bit grasping for straws.

There is a whole piece of this on erowid,

I'd take that Bruce Eisner bullshit with a big peice of salt tho. He's about as unreliable as it gets.

 

[invert]

of course it's the reasonable thing to do. but it's not a scientifically rigorous study until you have a reference standard for determining the "average response" to a "controlled dose" of "pure" LSD.

remember that set and setting play a HUGE role in how a trip feels both physically and psychologically. until you can standardize the dose, any results from tests on "street blotter" will be inconclusive. the only way to standardize the dose would be to have a reference sample of pure LSD in a KNOWN concentration to confirm the potency and purity of whatever blotter you're taking.

True, dosage variation between batches would be a problem. Set and setting variability not so much of a problem (as regards scientific rigour): they'd introduce noise, but (assuming user blind to batch) the noise wouldn't be confounded with batch, so you'd just need more trials to be done.

 

[psood0nym]

Yeah, the Eisner piece was already quoted and referenced beforehand by me as an example of self serving delusion and faulty reasoning being spouted by those that believe chemical impurities are a significant and common source of experiential variation. At the top of that article Erowid has noted that it's merely meant to be part of the historical record and that it contains a number of known errors.

Please, everyone read the entire three articles linked on Erowid linked by me earlier and take the evidence presented there into account in any further posts. I don't see any posts arguing the innate chemical difference position giving the full critical counter arguments their due, and they were presented on the first page, post #15.

 

[surf.shaman]

am I only one that finds diet to at least be a partial explanation of experiential difference? (especially 'body load')

 

[psood0nym]

Also, here's from the LSD entry in TIHKAL:

Let me mention in passing, that there are three stereoisomers possible for d-LSD. There are d-iso-LSD, l-LSD, and l-iso-LSD. The inversion of the stereochemistry of the attached diethylcarboxyamido group of d-LSD gives the diastereoisomer (d-iso-LSD) which is a frequent synthetic impurity of d-LSD itself. The corresponding optical antipodes l-LSD and l-iso-LSD are also known and have been tasted. All three are completely inactive: d-iso-LSD shows no psychological changes at an oral dose of 4 milligrams; l-LSD none at up to 10 milligrams orally; and l-iso-LSD none at 500 micrograms orally. These dramatic decreases in potency show both the stereoselectivity of the native LSD molecule in producing its central effects, and the LSD-free purity of these isomers.

Also, ergotamine is a precursor which could be left over unreacted, but it's approved for up to 6 mg a day as a migraine medication, and psychological effects, beyond "confusion," are not listed as side effects, not that the amount present on blotters would even approach the level of a single 2 mg dose.

am I only one that finds diet to at least be a partial explanation of experiential difference? (especially 'body load')

EDIT: Definitely. LSD, pure LSD, is a pretty strong vasoconstrictor capable of giving lots of body load in the form of body aches. Insulin is a skeletal muscle vasodialator, which can help alleviate some of these symptoms, so simply eating lots of sugar before dosing could make the difference between perceived "dirty"achy LSD and LSD that's perceived as being more clean and free of body load. Whether you're sitting around or moving also impacts the aches. Diet and movement are common sources of natural variability between and within trips that can impact body load. Others have reported swallowing LSD causing more GI stress than if they keep it in their mouths. Having more saliva in your mouth causing more swallowing could make the difference here.

 

[DwayneHoover]

Also, here's from the LSD entry in TIHKAL:

Also, ergotamine is a precursor which could be left over unreacted, but it's approved for up to 6 mg a day as a migraine medication, and psychological effects, beyond "confusion," are not listed as side effects, not that the amount present on blotters would even approach the level of a single 2 mg dose.

There are well known SYNERGISTIC reactions between drugs in the area of pharmacology, in which Effect of [X + Y] is much stronger than and/or much DIFFERENT than Effect of [X alone] + Effect of [Y alone].

For instance, of which you ought to be well aware, is:

Effect of [3g of mushrooms + 20mg harmine] is MUCH STRONGER AND MUCH DIFFERENT than the summed effects of [3g mushrooms alone] and [20mg harmine alone].

Therefore, your presumption that a full 2mg dose of ergotamine is necessarily required to MODIFY the perceived responses to the far more potent LSD is without basis. It is entirely possible that the two if present together could have some cross-synergy. What if only 0.5mg of Ergotamine is needed along with 100micrograms of LSD to produce the feelings of "dirty acid"?

In fact, since its effect in OD is "confusion", and since you say it could well be a common unreacted contaminant, I hereby raise a hypothesis (purely a hypothesis) that unreacted ergotamine is the culprit behind "dirty acid" acting in some hitherto unexplored synergy with the LSD.

Perhaps while 0.5mg not enough to have noticeable effects on its its own, it does not seem entirely unreasonable to suggest that LSD *may* have some side-effect of increasing the receptor-binding of the ergotamine, or some other inter-reaction. This seems worth exploring IMO.

 

[psood0nym]

^This is a similar possibility as was raised in the articles on Erowid. Namely, that a chemical with no activity alone at doses present on blotter may nevertheless modify the pharmacology of LSD. That same logic could apply to pretty much anything though, including chemicals in common foods. Certainly there is no research to back it up.

Again, it is a possibility, it just seems silly to hold onto the impurity affect hypothesis as realistic without any reason other than suspicion when KNOWN factors are plenty to explain the dirty acid phenomena. Also, since many cluster headache sufferers and migraine sufferers are prescribed ergotamine or closely related compounds at doses far higher than is present on blotters and they also often use LSD to control their headaches, we should expect their reports to contain a far higher proportion of dysphoric effects, and much more extreme dysphoric effects (literally orders of magnitude more), from LSD. So much so, that we'd expect mushrooms to be overwhelmingly preferred to LSD by this group of people (since this substantial portion of users would suffer terrible experiences with LSD but not, presumably, mushrooms), yet LSD is still recommended and used as an alternative therapy.

 

[DwayneHoover]

Here's where you are extremely wrong in your judgements, ps00d0nym, IMO. I do NOT think this speculation, which I reached without reading the speculation at Erowid is "silly" and "unrealistic".

FIRST: We are dealing in a realm of one of the most POTENT DRUGS KNOWN TO MAN. Thus it is NOT "silly" to assume that tiny impurities of some kind, given the highly potent domain that LSD is from, WHEN CONSISTENTLY REPORTED BY HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE, are of ZERO effect, and might very possibly even probably be a real factor.

SECOND: You are dealing with VERY strong differences of perceived effects, reported by HUGE numbers of people with regularity and repeatability that belie a purely psychogenic origin.

When Ive had crappy acid, every time I did it, it felt similarly crappy. And everyone I gave it to WITHOUT ME MENTIONING OR ACTING LIKE I THOUGHT IT WAS CRAPPY also felt it was crappy and complained back to me.

When Ive had extremely clean acid, every time I did it it felt similarly clean. And everyone I gave it to mentioned how clean it felt and immediately begged for more WITHOUT BEING TOLD I THOUGHT IT WAS EXTRA CLEAN.

Essentially, your hypothesis is: LSD can cause ANYTHING to happen inside the mind. Therefore, ANY AND ALL different effects sensed by users from different LSD products should always be presumed to originate in the minds of the users, and have NO PHYSICAL BASIS WHATSOEVER. Therefore ALL other theories are vacated by this one and ought to be considered null and void. BAD SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Scientific theories do NOT vacate each other like this in the absence of evidence and/or tightly cotrolled experiments. The other theory is NOT so outrageously wrong and yours not so obviously true purely on a basis of abstract reasoning. Your theory simply does NOT have the power to totally erase the viability of the "modification of LSD pharmacology by a tiny amount of contaminant, or vice versa" no matter how insistently you proclaim that it does, simply by the act of your proclamations. Your "logic" is unsound and many of your remarks consist of mere proclamations that all other theories should be considered ridiculous and wrong in the light of your clearly superior and obviously correct with NO evidence theory.. well, poppycock!

I find your theory to be a totally vacuous and useless theory as, like the "Ether" or "Philogistam" of the 18th century science, it CAN BE USED TO DENY AND/OR EXPLAIN ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. Thus it is pointless.

Plus I find it to be arrogantly and without rationale or sturdy reasoning to be throwing a set of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF NORMALLY CONSIDERED BY THE SCIENCE OF PHARMACOLOGY AS HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT DATAPOINTS, i.e., the self-reported subjective experiences of users, into the trash bin in a completely unjustified manner. These are REAL DATAPOINTS... not the worthless and meaningless ephemera that you are consistently and unscientifically trying to treat them as.

This "it is all caused by a drug that effects the mind in any way possible" and/or "its all a placebo effect" theory of yours I thus find to NOT be some "obvious truth" as you seem to insist on representing it (when it is really just another theory about a widely reported effect).

Sorry, its not convincing me to buy into your theory and toss the other one into the trash, which seems to be your goal by labeling it "silly" and "unrealistic". I can't think of any other reason for using those words and continuously hammering against the "contaminant" theory and promoting yours.

 

[psood0nym]

^Yikes. Struck a nerve 'eh. I think I'm done with this now. The last word is yours, and it says more than I ever could.

 

[DwayneHoover]

^Yikes. Struck a nerve 'eh. I think I'm done with this now. The last word is yours, and it says more than I ever could.

I thought my hypothesis was very reasonable, possible, and likely given the frequent ergotamine contamination, and merited at least a little detailed discussion, but you just seemed to wad it up, throw it in the trash can and call it names.

Sorry if I went overboard in an excessively vigorous rebuttal, or seemed insulting. I do like you alot... you seem to go thru alot of effort to be very logical and calm and reasonable and I really respect and like that. Unlike me who tends to huff and puff at the slightest provocation. Perhaps I should get a script of Valium or something, haha. Again, please accept my apologizes for being insulting. And thanks for not slapping me in the face. You are a very nice individual... me, eh, not so much.

Mea Culpa.

Meanwhile I DID read those three referenced erowid reports and my conclusion is that they did not really support the "Zero contaminants" and "100% Placebo/Set-And-Setting" viewpoints very well.

I'm writing up why, if anyone cares, focusing soley on those pages... I promise not to call anyone here "vacuous" 8)

BY THE WAY: I had been meaning to ask your personal experiences, hopefully it is not too late: did YOU ever do any what you would consider "extremely clean" LSD (back in the 60s/70s, or from then preserved, or of more recent vintage) that gave you a zero-body load, zero side-effect, totally "pure" feeling of very smooth clear Psychedelic effects with absolutely no dysphoria or physical side-effects? Did you ever do any that gave you aches and pains and headaches and dizziness and and just a general sensation of 'icky-ness", so much that it did not even seem very "psychedelic" at all? (the two ends of the "cleanliness spectrum") If the answer is yes to both, do you really think they could have been the same drug?

 

[psood0nym]

^Don't sweat it Mr. Hoover. With a name like that I expect you to suck occasionally.

 

[DwayneHoover]

^HAHA! That's good. btw - see edit above... a couple questions if you care to respond... if not, whatever.

 

[Dondante]

LOL

Mr. Hoover, I think you have a valid hypothesis, though perhaps not validated.

Maybe Psood and I (and a few other naysayers) have never experienced “dirty” acid. Personally, I’ve never experienced significant physical side effects from LSD, period.

A quick hypothetical: Let’s say you take 200 mcg LSD, but it’s only 20% pure (really, really “dirty” acid), so you are also consuming more than 700 mcg d-iso-LSD, with possibly a modest amount of lumi-LSD and minute quantities of other degradation byproducts and unreacted intermediates. Note: average purity of street samples was 62% according to a DEA analysis. I’d say it’s entirely possible that d-iso-LSD could have affinity for adrenergic receptors in that range. The bottom line, however, as stated in the one of the Erowid links, is that nobody has done the requisite study though it would be incredibly simple.

All that said, my hunch is still that psychological explanations account for much (but perhaps not all) of what is reported as "dirty" acid.

 

[DwayneHoover]

I think psood0nym thought he was in the Argument Office, but must have accidentally wandered into "Abuse"... (just noticed the guy in "Abuse" actually calls the guy "vacuous", which *I* used above... oh dear, I hope that's not how I come off, ERP!)

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

Pull this up next time you and friends are buzzed... you'll all be ROTFL in no time! Watch it all the way... the last millisecond before the blackout is a genius ending to a brilliant skit.​

Anyway, well perhaps it is an overlap of both effects, for for some its just mental and others just really did get some ill-prepared garbage. Among me and my friends and others here, there's nothing the sligtest bit subtle about it... in the worst cases there can be a very very strong, very negative, very "eww gross" "bad rush" sensation, almost like you suddenly are having all the symptoms of a flu hit you in the space of 2-3 hours... just from one little blotter. If that's never happened to you, then NO you have not had "really bad acid". Consider yourself very lucky. It's just terrible. Little or no psychedelic effects, unless you can cause blurry vision and a fever-like delerium "trippy." And it is clearly a VERY physical reaction to some very different drug, or a side-compound, or a trace compound that CHANGES the effects of LSD into the VERYBADACID effect. The extreme awfulness of it I guess is why some take offense when it is suggested "It's all in your stupid head, you big crybaby" HAHA... just kidding.... I know no one said THAT!

 

[Ismene]

Did you ever do any that gave you aches and pains and headaches

Yeah I did some LSD that gave me a headache. Then the next week I took the next blotter along and had a fantastic time.

I guess the first one was dirty and the next one along in the line must have been clean?

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks LSD can only produce one physical sensation in a human being can't know much about LSD. LSD can cause one physical sensation one minute and an entirely different one a minute later. That's kinda the whole point of LSD.

 

[Fwoosh]

For what it's worth, i'm with somekindalove on this one. There is for instance so much variation between different geographic source of lsd, that it's hard to believe- even subjectively, from experiencing the effects, that it's all the same thing or can be explained away with dodgy talk about "families" and different syntheses.