"unclean" acid trip report & questions

[Anon0631]

Funny then that I can get perfectly good LSD any time I choose. I can also buy NBOMe's or DOx's and they are labelled as such. It sounds like the fault lies where you are choosing to buy your drugs.

My LSD culture hasn't been affected in the slightest. I just have more paints in my palette to choose from.

 

[Northern LIGHTS]

well, its clear that we are not understanding eachother on either end... and that's ok. people wont always see eye to eye.

and it cant be fault in where i am buying drugs since i have been on my sobriety path for over 6 months now

 

[Solipsis]

The topic of the thread is the supposed consequences of taking unclean or impure LSD, not fake LSD meaning entirely other unrelated compounds.

I get that for some people the difference may seem subtle, based on their experiences... but conceptually it is something completely different we have other threads for. Further off-topic posts will be unapproved.

I've never heard of such an "impurity". For a start it would need to incredibly powerful - a lot more powerful than LSD - in order to overwhelm the effects of a larger dose of LSD. I've not heard of any psychoactive drug thats far more powerful than LSD at smaller doses.

I think an answer to that has already been pointed to: it may not be that there is a separate impurity that can be singled out to have superpotent effects on its own. (Again I repeat we are talking about physical effects, and subjective difference that some kinds may be a 'bummer' is not necessarily the same as getting nasty physical side-effects.)
Maybe we need to look at it differently: the total amount of ergoloids is mainly what matters. Because LSD is so strong it forms the main part of potent effects on mind and body. But minute amounts of other ergoloids could mess with the pharmacological profile. LSD's actions may be a delicate thing that already have a wide range of possible outcomes (and yes amplified psychosomatic effects a la placebo are a part of this).
But we have too little information IMO to say that it is impossible that impure LSD might mean that the ergoloid impurities push the possibly delicate balance of LSD's pharmacology exceedingly towards the unfavorable.

That you and others have not heard of such a phenomenon does not prove anything. And that the other ergoloids on their own do not show potent effects is also not conclusive because they were not looking at factors of potentiation of vasoconstriction and unspecified nervous events and who knows what else may be the cause of the physical nastiness described from supposed unclean LSD. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I would like to see trials with LSD combined with the other ergoloid synth by-products that someone was nice enough to provide earlier in the thread. And a wide variety of permutations of these ergoloids at that.
If such trials are done in a double blind way and there can be not statistical significance seen regarding bad physical effects, then I am satisfied that the debate is done. Then I will be the first to say I was completely wrong suspecting such things. And IMO that is a proper and open scientific approach rather than making assumptions based on lack of certain observations within a limited perspective (i.e. effects of every compound by itself) and excuses based on the wideness of LSD's effect spectrum that it has already without the impurities.

 

[Ismene]

True, there must be room for some kind of double-blind experimentation to weed out the existence of any alleged impurities, but with the evidence presented so far - that someone gets a few unpleasant physical side-effects from taking acid - I'm pretty confident that can be put down simply to the effects of "pure" LSD.

 

[Anon0631]

If you look at the sheer numbers of receptors that LSD binds to compared with other psychedelics, you have a potential explanation why it's associated with such a multitude of placebo-myths.

 

[Solipsis]

Could you explain that? When I try to follow that logic, it falls apart somewhere along the line... maybe that's just me though!

 

[Anon0631]

The fact that LSD hits so many receptors means it has a greater likelyhood of having a wider range of uncommon states of mind, body feelings, unusual emotions, etc. conpared to more selective psychedelics. Basically it's effects are less predictable than for instance psilocybin.

Combine the fact that LSD can be so variable from experience to experience with the fact that (in my experience), it has the wildest interpretative effects out of all the psychedelics and you have a potential explanation for why there have always been myths of strychnine, dirty acid, mystery compounds, etc.

 

[sekio]

LSD hits so many receptors

And psilocin doesn't? I thought both were moderately selective for 5ht2a... the idea that somehow LSD is a very nonselective drug seems to be based off of anecdotes. Sure it has affinity for other receptors, but that affinity is 10 to 1000 times less strong, and psilocin has the same deal (binding to lots of "nontarget" receptors)

I know people who very much prefer LSD and find it more "reliable" and "reproducible" than mushrooms, and I also know people who like mushrooms much more than acid. To each their own.

means it has a greater likelyhood of having a wider range of uncommon states of mind, body feelings, unusual emotions, etc. conpared to more selective psychedelics.

Do you have anything at all to back this statement up? And what would you call a "selective psychedelic"? It's looking more and more like there is no such thing; even the 25xNBOMe compounds are moderately dirty and have *some* affinity for shit like mu-opioid.

 

[weadazoid]

So since we are talking impurities how come when I was growing up and came to my drug taking age in the early 90's paper LSD was rummored at times to have stricknine in it to keep the LSD on the blotter. Anyone else ever here that one? supposedly the rule was if you had neck pain or back pain before or after the trip the paper had stricknine.


It is the one thing I never see on these boards. It was always talked about when I was getting into this stuff. Then I discovered MDMA and had a blast.... despite knowing at times there were clearly impurities in the pills.... Heroin and speed in some for sure apparently, then I got luck and found a chemist who made all kinds of designers himself.... and that was the golden age for me. no more coping no more stress. The dude was the man!

 

[Swimmingdancer]

Anon - For me, LSD has been the most consistant and predictable psychedelic, definitely more so than mushrooms. A wildly unpredictable psychedelic is ayahuasca. I doubt you have tried "all the psychedelics". We barely understand psychedelics, I do not think that just because you feel LSD is unpredictable and you think it has wide mechanisms of action[*debatable] that that is evidence that "placebo" is the SOLE reason for all and any variability in effects within a single individual.

So since we are talking impurities how come when I was growing up and came to my drug taking age in the early 90's paper LSD was rummored at times to have stricknine in it to keep the LSD on the blotter. Anyone else ever here that one? supposedly the rule was if you had neck pain or back pain before or after the trip the paper had stricknine.

It is the one thing I never see on these boards.

Yeah, because it's not true. The strychnine in LSD thing is just a myth. The only tested sample I have ever heard of of LSD actually containing strychnine was supposedly from someone deliberately trying to poison someone else (and I don't think it was a blotter). There are entire websites devoted to debunking the myth that LSD contains strychnine if you want more info.

(Also it is highly unlikely that there would be heroin in MDMA, and heroin is not very active orally - it's probably just MDMA without speed in it. Anyway, back on topic... ).

 

[Anon0631]

Admittedly this is no more than my opinion based on correlation. I'm surprised to hear that people think acid is predictable though. That certainly hasn't been my experience.

The strychnine myth was all over the place in the 80's and 90's. In my circles it was used to explain a trip which was more speedy/hectic than usual. Isn't strychnine one of the bitterest substances known to man?

 

[my3rdeye]

"The strychnine in LSD thing is just a myth."

And so is dirty acid. You are talking about the same thing anyway, it came from the exact same place. Your neck was sore in 1990 it was rat poison, in 2013 it's impure acid. People are still blaming the side effects on something other than LSD. There is no difference besides everyone laughs about rat poison myth now. LSD has physical side effects sometimes, and sometimes it has none, it's in no way related to the batch. No one can tell the difference between street acid and Sandoz:
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_article2.shtml

People who say the impurities cause side effects can't point to an actual chemical to blame so now its some weird interaction between the LSD and other compounds? It seems like grasping for an answer when the much easier answer is blame the acid. There is zero evidence to suggest the side effects are from anything other than acid.


"Like someone makes a weak batch (or has liquid that has substantially degraded and is now weak), but realizes if you take enough of it it still produces LSD effects, so they put, for example, the equivalent of 2mg of solutes on each blotter. Then it would contain 100mcg LSD and 1.9mg something else."

But that would only explain that batch. Why do the side effects happen with multiple different batchs, in dots or paper or gels? Its universal across batchs. Why can i give people acid from the same batch and they will report it clean one time and dirty the next?
To me the only debate is if the stiff neck and sore stomach are real or all in your head. Anyone want to get an MRI on acid and settle that?

 

[rollonsafely]

Sorry to say this and I know it may upset some of the more 'religious' here but LSD is anything but a clean drug if clean is defined by receptor selectivity.

Clean is a very ambiguous term and i have noticed that people generally associate "clean" with lack of harsh comedown and if the particular substance they are taking acts in the same or better way then they are expecting. Just like you can have two batches of mdma that feel differently im sure different batches of LSD that dont "live up to expectations" of what the user expects of "typical LSD" they may call that a dirty high

 

[Anon0631]

Clean means good trip, dirty means difficult trip. Its easier for a user to externalise the variability inherent in the experience rather than accept its about their own psyche. People will go a long way to avoid admitting that LSD is not an easy substance to handle.

 

[Reverend Random]

The fact that LSD hits so many receptors means it has a greater likelyhood of having a wider range of uncommon states of mind, body feelings, unusual emotions, etc. conpared to more selective psychedelics. Basically it's effects are less predictable than for instance psilocybin.

Combine the fact that LSD can be so variable from experience to experience with the fact that (in my experience), it has the wildest interpretative effects out of all the psychedelics and you have a potential explanation for why there have always been myths of strychnine, dirty acid, mystery compounds, etc.

I think it's the fact that LSD is synthesized is the cause for all these myths, not because LSD hits so many different receptors. Actually, I think that's pretty irrelevant. The effect of any psychedelic substance is very dependent on things such as set and setting. And remember, set and setting are not just two variable, they both comprise a whole range of different variable that do influence the experience. That's the same whether you're talking LSD, psilocybin, mescaline or whatever. Maybe people are more prone to expecting varying effects from a natural substance? Maybe the popularity of LSD during the sixties and its consequent immeasurable number of attached myths and media attention has lead people to believe that LSD is different from other psychedelics for some reason. Besides potency, I really doubt that. Psychedelics are unpredictable by definition.

And psilocin doesn't? I thought both were moderately selective for 5ht2a... the idea that somehow LSD is a very nonselective drug seems to be based off of anecdotes. Sure it has affinity for other receptors, but that affinity is 10 to 1000 times less strong, and psilocin has the same deal (binding to lots of "nontarget" receptors)

I know people who very much prefer LSD and find it more "reliable" and "reproducible" than mushrooms, and I also know people who like mushrooms much more than acid. To each their own.

To each their own indeed. I personally prefer psilocybin but do find LSD much more reliable and controllable than psilo. But, yeah, your mileage may vary and to each their own and all that jazz.

With regard to LSD and receptor affinity, have a look at these two images from Torsten Passie's - The Pharmacology of LSD:

Other picture, same story: