Relevant Journal articles may be found at:
LSD and Its Lysergamide Cousins
David E. Nichols, Ph.D.
http://www.4shared.com/document/uLD56YJN/Nichols_2004-The_Heffter_Revie.html
Stereoselective LSD-like Activity in a Series of d-Lysergic Acid Amides of (R)-
and (S)-Z-hinoalkanes
Aaron P. Monte, Danuta Marona-Lewicka, Arthi Kanthasamy, Elaine Sanders-Bush,+ and David E. Nichols*
Departments of Medicinal Chemistry and Pharmacognosy and Pharmacology
http://www.4shared.com/document/VZ-D_68O/Monte_1995-J_Med_Chem.html
Earlier extensive Bl thread:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?p=8907322
So far as blotter that's not really LSD, yes set and setting IS obviously a large factor, however, in reply to the absolutism being expressed by some, there is ample evidence that there ARE substances active at blotter doses that are NOT LSD, being sold as LSD on blotters, despite folks above telling you its all in your head.
Thanks to SKL on esotericpharma.org... below is a direct copy of a few of his posts there, as well as the above journal article full PDFs... I asked him to repost it in one of the "fake acid?" threads here but he hasnt yet, so I'll spare him the trouble, since I am so tired of hearing the fact-free
"all blotter is necessarily real LSD and any incorrect effects are all in your head" bullshit some people are obsessed with repeating over and over for reasons I won't attempt to psychoanalytically speculate about
- DH
Non-LSD ergoloids on blotter sold as "LSD" (GC/MS included)
Attached is a GC/MS that was done on a well-circulated blotter of European origin, a design that you would have heard of.
I and many others sampled the blotters, and felt the same way ... and this has been commented on by various people over the years ... it felt almost, but not quite like LSD (this is why the GC/MS was obtained), but was definitely not a DO-drug, 5-MeO-AMT, or any else of the various "other" things that has wound up on bunk blots.
The astute organic chemists among us will note that this is not LSD (note-a professional chemist I am not, but I have all of this on good authority). The GC/MS is not very easy to read because it came of paper which causes significant artifacts, but that much is clear.
Re: This is not LSD.
What is it, then?
I passed it to a chemist friend of mine who would prefer to remain anonymous, and he suggests one of the following:
N-(3-pentyl)-lysergamide ("LSP")
N-(sec-butyl)-lysergamide ("LSB")
Relevant journal articles attached [see above - DH]:
Monte et al., J Med Chem 38;958-966 (1995)
Nichols, Heffeter Rev Psychedelic Res, 2;80-88 (2004)
Re: This is not LSD.
To dredge up some posts on Bluelight by me on this matter from earlier this year:
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
RE: Non-LSD ergoloids on blotter sold as "LSD" (GC/MS includ
The 'other' ergoloid, which I will call "LS?", is, broadly speaking, in my limited subjective experience:
* shorter acting
* faster acting
* less "deep", "profound", or "spiritual"
* less anxiogenic
* perhaps more visually impressive
* more "stoning"
* characterized by a slightly different body load
Re: Non-LSD ergoloids on blotter sold as "LSD" (GC/MS includ
Spark wrote:
Interesting. The question is, why would they sell these things instead of the real deal? Cheaper to make? Easier to make? A mistake in the synthesis (unlikely)?
It is quieter to make. Less watched precursors.
Quote:
Perhaps this is an explanation for the differences in "quality" that people speak of in terms of LSD. At least in some cases, I'd imagine. Honestly, one compound (and since the enantiomer thread makes it clear it is ONLY one compound) can't be that dammed different on a regular basis...
I think MOST of the difference has to do with subjective factors, but this is a factor.
I think that small impurities in various steps of the synth may also influence the final product in untoward ways. In a conversation I had with Dr. Nichols he suggested impure diethylamine resulting in the production of unknown lysergamides that might have effects in microdoses, but that is basically speculation. He definitely agreed that it is not al subjective though.
Quote:
What honestly always worries me more is that instead of LSD, they'll sell DOX as LSD.
This was a popular practice for a while during the overlap of the post-Pickard drought and the beginning of the modern RC scene, but now is a little less common, except in really backwater markets. DOB was the big offender in those days.
DOC blotters definitely circulate though. I got a page of DOC blotters with the Alex Gray Hofmann painting on it once, and that pissed me off
. But I knew what I asked for and I knew what I got.
SOMEONE ELSE:
Re: Non-LSD ergoloids on blotter sold as "LSD" (GC/MS includ
I posted this in the thread SLK mention in the OP.
"I recently came across a supplier of acid whose acid, though very high quality, seems to be slightly different in effects from all of my previous LSD experiences and vastly different my DOx blotter experiences. The supposed LSD produced visuals at a very low level of intensity (which is far from all my previous experiences with LSD). It was also surprising anxiolytic at high doses where CEV's were constant and extremely vivid. The head space wasn't as out there as all my other previous experiences as well, even after consuming 4 hits (the visuals were absolutely insane). There are reports from multiple who also consumed this blotter that it was very visual, even with one hit. It felt like an ergoline, but it just felt different from LSD."
I wish I still had some the blotter and the money to get it tested.
A different batch of LSD was sold from my dealer which from another individual who has taken the above blotters and then consumed some of the new batch had a different qualitative experience, than the batch of blotters that were in town literally a week before. Now I never got a chance to consume these blotters, but it was reported that they were way less visual and had a stronger head high/analytical mind fuck if you will, with roughly the same dosage in terms of intensity and number of blotters consumed.
In case people are wondering, I'm in the US on the east coast. The suspect blotters where of varying prints which were all perforated (i personally saw a star patterned, pop art john lennon, and some dahli esque eye art). The next batch of blotter was just standard white on white unperforated.
SKL AGAIN:
The blotter in the OP was the cartoon hofmann/ohm blotter.
Re: Non-LSD ergoloids on blotter sold as "LSD" (GC/MS included)
Topic rearing its head on BL again
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=545721
My key post from that thread
Quote:
Important thing here, is that there are multiple Things being talked about in this thread:
1. high vs, low quality LSD - there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for this but not a lot of genuine chemical knowledge about how this could be so. The inscribe enantiomers of LSD are almost certainly NOT responsible; but it is not entirely impossible that other compounds, products of impure reagents or botched syntheses, might have untoward physiological effects. No less an authority than Dr. Nichols (pers. comm., 2008 ) has speculated as much.
2. Non-LSD ergoloids - this is confirmed but nobody knows very much about the subject and those that do aren't talking. To me it is a major scandal. But the thing is, these are actually pretty cool drugs, it is highly unlikely that they are causing any higher proportion of "bad" experiences than legit LSD.
3. Non-ergoloid psychedelics. This is just a dick move mostly by stupid kids to custie people. It was popular during the post-Pickard drought, a time during which #2 was unheard of ... But now is a little less common except in truly backwater markets, largely, I believe, due to the proliferation of #2.
4. Set and setting. Probably the biggest factor, more than people would like to admit, in the subjective differences betwixt different trips.
some of the enterprising chemists of the psychedelic counterculture certainly played around & produced some similar things. A couple things I'm curious about that I don't have an answer for though are 1) Mass production could be an economic liability for such an organization if a chemical turned out to be less desirable or there was an issue with scaling up from the initial tests. This would be a disincentive. 2) Knowing there's a substantial niche market for such things, why not make some available via already existing channels to intrepid psychonauts who would probably pay well above lsd's market retail value?
