Heirarchy of LSD

[Cat Again]

That was not the thread I was thinking about. He mentions it, but I couldn't find it searching after a couple min. It talks more about the family stuff, and the distribution.

I'm glad you posted a link to this one though. Its a good read and I had not come across it before.

hmm, ur right. i actually meant to post alink to this thread which mentions it in the first post.

 

[delusional]

soon i will have a thumbpring hopefully in 2 yrs or so lol..

 

[Immortal Teknique]

For anyone who cbf going to the link, this is quick overview of the crystal from the page "Cat Again" posted by Chinacat from the shroomery. If anyone is interested in production of LSD by the grateful Dead family, go to the shroomery forums and read some of chinacat32's posts. He was in the family who laid the blotter with the acid and it provides some very interesting reads.

TYPES OF CRYSTAL
Needlepoint-very pure(95% ) white powerdery crystal,was available in small amount`s. The best of the best
White Fluff-Very pure(95% ) white light flakes of crystal. Still around and the most sought after. very pure
Silver-Good and clean(85-90% )-light greyish crystal. Was an unbelievable amount of this around in the late eighty`s and early nineties. Very good stuff. My first thumbprint was this kind. If you ate acid in the 80-90`s you probably sampled some silver.
Amber-Decent(70%?) This crystal varied from a light amber color to an almost dark brown color.Was always available.One batch called quadricept amber was the color of light honey and was very good.Lot`s a people worked with this crystal but I always would use silver instead since it was better and the same price.
Lavender-(60-70%?) light purple to almost black colored crystal. Like amber it varied batch to batch.
TJ(tornado juice) - purity unknown. I seen this shit in about four different colors and it always scared me. No experiance with it.
Champagne-(50-60% ) black crystal, nasty stuff IMHO. I worked with it once and swore to never touch it again.

 

[huntmich]

^^So how would any normal person identify if his/hers were one of the above catagory? Is it just a matter of experience, you have to know it before you try it?

 

[jimbu]

you'd only know this if you were cooking it, or if you were putting it on the blotter, or if the cook or the person putting it on the blotter told you, or if a person who was told by the cook or the person putting it on the blotter told you, or if a person who was told by the person who was told by the cook or the person putting it on the blotter told you, or if a person who was told by the person who was told by the person who was told by the cook or the person putting it on the blotter told you.

 

[Immortal Teknique]

^^ Haha, reading that was similar to the feeling i get on acid when someone is trying to explain something to me in really simple terms and i still dont understand hehe.

To huntmich, there is no real way of telling what grade of crystal your getting unless of course you know the person making it. The best you can do is make assumptions based on how potent say...one blotter is. You can never be sure though....

 

[gloggawogga]

Yikes!! I don't know if should believe one word I am reading in this thread. 8)

 

[Sn2]

you'd only know this if you were cooking it, or if you were putting it on the blotter, or if the cook or the person putting it on the blotter told you, or if a person who was told by the cook or the person putting it on the blotter told you, or if a person who was told by the person who was told by the cook or the person putting it on the blotter told you, or if a person who was told by the person who was told by the person who was told by the cook or the person putting it on the blotter told you.

This is laughable.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. Perhaps you kids shouldn't believe everything you read or hear in a parking lot. :D

 

[Cat Again]

^^word

 

[Jamshyd]

I agree with the last few posts. This is rediculous.

It reminds me of "Double stacked white mitsubishis, D00d!!1!!1!!"

LSD is LSD - no matter how pure. If its cut with anything active enough to fit on a blotter, you'll know you had DOB or 5-MeO-AMT, not "amber" or "fluff".

No offense to anyone who takes this seriously, but... come on.

 

[bluedolphin]

^^^
No way. Anyone who's sampled a fair share of L can tell the difference in purity. Clean L will feel better on the body and give less of a jittery feeling and probably less anxiety overall.

If purity didn't matter then the terms "clean acid" and "dirty acid" woudn't exist. Every old hippie I've met agrees that they can easily tell the difference between a pure and an impure batch.

 

[Jamshyd]

Ah, but BD... I can also tell you the difference between a "clean trip" and a "dirty trip" from the same batch of LSD. I am very sure you agree that set and setting can drastically alter a trip - even body-wise .

 

[Goanaut]

If I am reading correctly, my understanding is that some of you believe I am going on the word of a drug dealer at best, not a friend (when it comes to my comments on the quality of the LSD currently available). This is not the case. I agree that the old families of LSD distribution have broken up for the most part. Thats not to say that there is not a new source for high quality LSD, and new circles of people involved with the distribution thereof. Someone has to do it, and someone is.

Nuff said?

 

[bluedolphin]

Ah, but BD... I can also tell you the difference between a "clean trip" and a "dirty trip" from the same batch of LSD. I am very sure you agree that set and setting can drastically alter a trip - even body-wise .

If I eat blotters off the same sheet on different occasions, the trip may be different but it will essentially feel like the same drug.

There is also a reason why so many people have commented that this last batch of white unperforated LSD is some of the cleanest LSD they've had regardless of whether or not they thought it was among the more potent blotters they've had.

It is not only the original type of crystal that matters, but how fresh it is as well. Last winter I had a few microdots which were fantastic. Over the summer I got some of the same exact microdots from the same hookup and they didn't feel nearly as clean to the body on any of the occasions I ate them. Also they had lost some potency.

I don't know... I'd think if there was no noticeable difference in the quality of the crystal than chemists wouldn't bother washing their product to make it more pure. I mean why bother if you can just put 160ug of impure LSD on a blotter to achieve the same results as 90ug of very pure LSD on the same blotter?

 

[TAPPER]

LSD is LSD - no matter how pure.

I really have to disagree w/ you here. LSD has many analogs, some of which are active in man at similar microgram quantities. Just because one sets out to manufacture lsd doesn’t ensure the final product is actually LSD-25. According to Shulgin, “Repeated recrystallizations from methanol produced a product that became progressively less soluble, and eventually virtually insoluble, as the purity increased. A totally pure salt, when dry and when shaken in the dark, will emit small flashes of white light.” If the cook did not recrystallize (aka: wash or rinse) to the totally pure salt, the subsequent “LSD” could very well be one of its analogs. During the “summer of love” in the late 60’s it is believed the “orange sunshine” acid was in actuality an LSD analog, ALD-52.

If its cut with anything active enough to fit on a blotter, you'll know you had DOB or 5-MeO-AMT, not "amber" or "fluff".

As stated above, a substance other than LSD can be present and fit on a blotter. I doubt anyone would consider the presence of any LSD analog as a “cut”, but one could very well experience noticeably different “trips” without ever ingesting any of the compounds you have mentioned.

It’s well documented purity plays an important role in the lsd experience. Here are just a few paragraphs I grabbed from an Eisner article.

“Timothy Leary, who realized that impurities were a threat to the spreading psychedelic revolution, uttered prophetic words of warning at a Senate committee hearing in 1966, in exchange with Teddy Kennedy:”

“Augustus Stanley Owsley III, unable to obtain any pharmaceutical LSD, began to manufacture his own - first in Los Angeles in '65, then in nearby Point Richmond in '66. Owsley's fellow alchemist, Tim Scully, admitted to me that the 1965 batch was impure, but claims that Owsley and he perfected a purification process in 1966. Many who used both Sandoz and Owsley - the latter came in tablets of purple (Purple Haze) and white (White Lightning) of 270 micrograms - say that Owsley acid was less mystical and had more stimulant side reactions than the Sandoz product.”

“LSD is a translucent crystal; this was a black mess. Thus, the first underground LSD was also the first impure batch, and its distribution may, somewhere, have incurred the first unfavorable consumer reaction.”

There are numerous sources that all confirm color changes related to crystal purity. Why then is it so hard to believe cooks would label their end product accordingly?
As posted previously:

TYPES OF CRYSTAL
Needlepoint-very pure(95% ) white powerdery crystal…
White Fluff-Very pure(95% ) white light flakes of crystal….
Silver-Good and clean(85-90% )-light greyish crystal…..
Amber-Decent(70%?) This crystal varied from a light amber color to an almost dark brown color.Was always available.One batch called quadricept amber was the color of light honey and was very good.
Lavender-(60-70%?) light purple to almost black colored crystal. Like amber it varied batch to batch.
TJ(tornado juice) - purity unknown. I seen this shit in about four different colors…
Champagne-(50-60% ) black crystal…..

This hierarchy of crystal purity is well known (especially in Dead family circles) and is directly based from the physical condition of the resultant product. It’s not just a label tossed in for the hell of it nor is it some rumor passed on via secret parking lot discussions.

 

[Coolio]

This thread is complete horseshit. LSD is LSD and you're all deluded if you think a bunch of bullshit stories you heard from bullshit talking hippies on some Dead tours are true. Impure LSD is inactive, it doesn't change the nature of the trip at all. Taking a thumbprint of fluff is no different than drinking a few vials of 7th hand LSD solution, just as taking some nasty cut up crank (as long as it's not so impure as to still have P2P in it) is no different than a shard of pure dl-methamphetamine.

Nobody is accidentally making LSD analogs in the same synthesis as the LSD. If it's an analog it's pure analog.

 

[fastandbulbous]

LSD is piezo-luminescent (gives out light when pressure is applied to it), so on that basis, it should be possible to weigh out a gram, put it between two sheets of glass, apply a set pressure (put a standard, known heavy weight on it) and measure the amount of light produced using photoreceptive electronics.

The more light, the purer it is...

Incidentally, that's why light isn't good for LSD; the effect works both ways - shine light on LSD and it causes the molucule to become more excited (vibrate more - same way as heat does), increasing the rate of conversion from LSD to iso-LSD

 

[TAPPER]

Nobody is accidentally making LSD analogs in the same synthesis as the LSD. If it's an analog it's pure analog.

Hmm..I guess Shulgin is helping spread bullshit stories from bullshit talking hippies at deaad shows.

From Tihkal LSD synthesis commentary;

"This was the focus of a fascinating trial where two defendants were accused of distributing LSD, whereas they claimed that it was ALD-52 which was not an illegal drug. The prosecution claimed that as it hydrolyses readily to LSD, for all intents and purposes it was LSD, and anyway, you had to go through the illegal LSD to get to ALD-52 by any of the known chemical syntheses. The defendants were found guilty."

 

[fastandbulbous]

^ that's not strictly accurate w.r.t. the quote. They were making 1-acetyl LSD, which happened to degrade/hydrolyse to LSD after the synthesis. Not the same as accidentally making LSD analogues.

Other than impurities from the starting materials (ergotamine/ergonovine), the only other compounds you're going to get from an LSD synth are d-LSD (the one you want) l-LSD, d-iso-LSD and l-iso-LSD (and left over lysergic acid monohydrate). You're not going to get lysergic acid ethylamide (or any other weird amide deriv), any other alkyl group on the D-ring nitrogen if you're starting with lysergic acid monohydrate and diethylamine.

BTW, ALD-52 (1-acetyl LSD) is NOT LSD for all intents and purposes; it's a different molecule, and the defence lawyer should have shot big fucking holes in that part of the arguement. That's like saying pethedine and 1-methyl-4-phenylpiperidine-4-carboxylate are the same because pethedine hydrolyses to it.

 

[Jamshyd]

Although I am aware of the many LSD analogues, I am also aware (and as F&B pointed out) that none of the ones that can be accidentally produced have the same potency as LSD - hence, even if they're there, the ammount you ingest will have negligible effect. This is especially true for having unreacted precursors, which might be the main argument for this issue. As for ALD-52 and other such compounds... the chemist would have to go through an even more diffcult synthesis to produce such analogues, and I don't think chemists sane enough to synthesize LSD would do that.

I could be wrong, though.