iueuifsjrireio
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2022
- Messages
- 15
In my personal experience, smoked DMT, by far. However, I don't think I have tried enough psychedelics in enough doses/settings to give a definitive answer, and I doubt a lot of people have done it, either.
In any case I always found this a interesting question, even though is somewhat ill-defined, but that is what makes it fun too, ahahha. I have read quite a lot about it and according not only to my experience but also to what I have read and figured out (some of this compounds I haven't tried!) I would classify them by levels similar to this:
Sorry for the long text!
1)IV DMT>smoked DMT>other psychs works explosively in the IV or smoked route.
You can perfectly replace the ">" symbols by equalities as all the compounds of this category can produce top visual experiences (so the comparision there is pretty subjective/anecdotal). The only reason I put the ">" is because IV DMT is a bit more efficient than smoked (quite a bit at high doses) and because I think DMT probably produces less side mental and physical effects than the others, i.e. it could be a bit more clear-headed, so you can be a bit less distressed to focus on the visuals. However this again is a bit speculative as there is not enough statistical sample, and all the compounds are around the same visual level.
Anyway my point is that I think the ROA has been overlooked in the discussion quite a bit. As an example I don't think DMT to be so visually intense by anything intrinsic to it, but I assign 80% of its visual power to the ROA. I think when people compare it to acid or shrooms, and talk about doses, they are somewhat missing the shot, as the character of the experience is different. Think about stims: can you reallly compare oral amphetamine against IV coke, or smoked meth against insufflated coke? The ROA can even affect different compounds in different ways, foer example IV coke is said to be equally of even more intense than IV meth according to some people, even though meth is considered generally a much stronger stiumlant.
This first category is somewhat conditioned by my personal experience because I disagree with this (IME)
-If we talk about CEVs the thing changes completely. IME most psychs in medium to high doses generates very intense and pretty encompassing CEVs and visions as the visuals don't have to "compete/modify" the external word. The content and themes sometimes vary.
-
-With "compounds that works explosively" I mean ones that delivery very strong and fast experiences comparatively to the oral route. In the IV route there are a good number of tryps (4-ACO-X, base tryps etc ) and some PEAs (2C-B, 2C-E, 2C-P etc). Smoked/vapourised there fewer, I think, maybe a small group of tryps and PEAs (like bufotenin or maybe NBOMes). AFAIK lysergamides don't work explosively in these routes.
2)Psychs that work well in the IM/rectal/insufflated route. I haven't read enough (cause is not a common route) to compare it systematically. But I expect them to work stronger than oral but not so much as IV/smoked. I am unsure about this level, though.
3a)The NBOMes, (25-I, 25-B, 25-D, 25-D) Among the oral psychs I would put the NBOMes at first place. It is true that they are (were) usually dosed pretty high (1mg is a higher dose than the average hit of LSD for example) as they are pretty clear-headed at lower and mid doses, but even considering that they produce very strong visuals for many people. It's a pitty that they are so unhealthy/dangerous cause they are pretty visual psychs
3b) 2C-P/2C-E /2C-T-7 Here we enter in a way more debatable territory but I would say that this two compounds stand out usually as more visual than most of the others. .
3c) Many oral psychedelics Again this is even more debatable and many people could put some compounds of this group as more visual than the ones above as there are many more aspects (the headspace/the dose/the themes of the visuals/CEVs or OEVs). For example I always thought than very high doses of lysergamides would be on top (as they have no extreme physical side effects) but my limited trials of this has given to me extremely mentally intense experiences without an spectacular increase of visuals, so I am not exploring this direction any more. Other people could name ETH-LAD, 4-HO-MET, MET, 2C-T-2, I don't see clear standouts.
4) Not very visual oral psychedelics I am unsure about very high doses but there are some psychs like DiPT, AMT, 2C-C etc which don't seem very visual at low-medium doses.
In any case I always found this a interesting question, even though is somewhat ill-defined, but that is what makes it fun too, ahahha. I have read quite a lot about it and according not only to my experience but also to what I have read and figured out (some of this compounds I haven't tried!) I would classify them by levels similar to this:
Sorry for the long text!
1)IV DMT>smoked DMT>other psychs works explosively in the IV or smoked route.
You can perfectly replace the ">" symbols by equalities as all the compounds of this category can produce top visual experiences (so the comparision there is pretty subjective/anecdotal). The only reason I put the ">" is because IV DMT is a bit more efficient than smoked (quite a bit at high doses) and because I think DMT probably produces less side mental and physical effects than the others, i.e. it could be a bit more clear-headed, so you can be a bit less distressed to focus on the visuals. However this again is a bit speculative as there is not enough statistical sample, and all the compounds are around the same visual level.
Anyway my point is that I think the ROA has been overlooked in the discussion quite a bit. As an example I don't think DMT to be so visually intense by anything intrinsic to it, but I assign 80% of its visual power to the ROA. I think when people compare it to acid or shrooms, and talk about doses, they are somewhat missing the shot, as the character of the experience is different. Think about stims: can you reallly compare oral amphetamine against IV coke, or smoked meth against insufflated coke? The ROA can even affect different compounds in different ways, foer example IV coke is said to be equally of even more intense than IV meth according to some people, even though meth is considered generally a much stronger stiumlant.
This first category is somewhat conditioned by my personal experience because I disagree with this (IME)
-If we are talking of OEVs, this is not a generic effect of psychedelics for me, even in very high doses. For me the visual of psychs are not like this cliche psychedelic filter that increases linearly with the dose, as they are A HUGE quantity of other perceptive and MENTAL effects going along, and most high doses of oral psychs become very mental in character as those doses. I consider myself to have a mid or even mid-high quantity of visuals relative to the dose, so I am not an extreme case or rarity, I think. The only psych which I tried that does this with a certain frequency with open eyes is smoked DMT and even with it, is not the generic outcome. So, reading lots of reports I have assumed most of this has to do with the ROA.
-If we talk about CEVs the thing changes completely. IME most psychs in medium to high doses generates very intense and pretty encompassing CEVs and visions as the visuals don't have to "compete/modify" the external word. The content and themes sometimes vary.
-
-With "compounds that works explosively" I mean ones that delivery very strong and fast experiences comparatively to the oral route. In the IV route there are a good number of tryps (4-ACO-X, base tryps etc ) and some PEAs (2C-B, 2C-E, 2C-P etc). Smoked/vapourised there fewer, I think, maybe a small group of tryps and PEAs (like bufotenin or maybe NBOMes). AFAIK lysergamides don't work explosively in these routes.
2)Psychs that work well in the IM/rectal/insufflated route. I haven't read enough (cause is not a common route) to compare it systematically. But I expect them to work stronger than oral but not so much as IV/smoked. I am unsure about this level, though.
3a)The NBOMes, (25-I, 25-B, 25-D, 25-D) Among the oral psychs I would put the NBOMes at first place. It is true that they are (were) usually dosed pretty high (1mg is a higher dose than the average hit of LSD for example) as they are pretty clear-headed at lower and mid doses, but even considering that they produce very strong visuals for many people. It's a pitty that they are so unhealthy/dangerous cause they are pretty visual psychs
3b) 2C-P/2C-E /2C-T-7 Here we enter in a way more debatable territory but I would say that this two compounds stand out usually as more visual than most of the others. .
3c) Many oral psychedelics Again this is even more debatable and many people could put some compounds of this group as more visual than the ones above as there are many more aspects (the headspace/the dose/the themes of the visuals/CEVs or OEVs). For example I always thought than very high doses of lysergamides would be on top (as they have no extreme physical side effects) but my limited trials of this has given to me extremely mentally intense experiences without an spectacular increase of visuals, so I am not exploring this direction any more. Other people could name ETH-LAD, 4-HO-MET, MET, 2C-T-2, I don't see clear standouts.
4) Not very visual oral psychedelics I am unsure about very high doses but there are some psychs like DiPT, AMT, 2C-C etc which don't seem very visual at low-medium doses.
Last edited:
