Why are some batches of acid more stimulating than others?

[MrHH]

Exactly It's actually a very old debate, and as I've said, it's usually ascribed to either purity or placebo, and there is no scientific evidence of either claim. It's all just hearsay and "I think it must be like this, therefore it is like this".

Most of the compounds that are able to alter the experience should not be active in the ranges of dosages that can fit on a blotter (except other active -or even inactive- compounds detectable by Energy Control) .

I analyze all blotters on EC, and they never found anything strange like a precursor/synthesis element or any active cuts on the LSD I take. Just sometimes iso-LSD together with LSD (they indeed say that it is able to reduce LSD activity, but there is no literature backing up this). I am able to notice a difference on effects on these, but maybe it's just placebo...

That makes me think that differences between certified pure LSD batches are subjective, mainly due to set/setting, tolerance, or any other factor like already mentioned.

Anyway, if the analysis device found just "LSD"... it should be just "LSD".

Maybe there is a dose change, but that should not explain different effects, just weak effects in comparison with other batches...

 

[Incunabula]

I analyze all blotters on EC, and they never found anything strange like a precursor/synthesis element......

Mmmhhh, I didn't think it was possible to create a 100% pure compound Are you sure, they just aren't telling you because they see it as unimportant? Did they explicitly say "100% pure"?

Anyway, if the analysis device found just "LSD"... it should be just "LSD.

I don't really think it works like that. There is no "analysis device" were when you just stick the LSD-blotter in, it then returns a read out that says "congratulations, you have LSD". The results from the analysis needs to be interpreted by a human. And I think that different methods of analysing are more or less precise.

This article on erowid is from 2004, but I think it's still up to date. Among other things, it talks of the difficulty of analysing LSD. https://www.erowid.org/lsd_analysis

 

[Kl519]

I read that link. Thanks for putting it up. It sucks that the DEA pretty much forbids public testing, and that they keep a close eye on labs with the proper equipment and knowledge to determine the purity and dose. Do they still enforce this? I felt like I heard somewhere that lsd can be lab tested legally nowadays, but umm...maybe not.

An attempt to control with an iron grip at its finest, even at the cost of reducing harm to the public. Sounds familiar...

On to the main topic at hand, it's possible some of these lsd tabs contain lsd analogues instead. I know for sure that tabs of other lysergamides do exist, but I've never tried them. I've only seen them. Set and setting does matter a lot, but probably not enough to turn a substance into something completely different from the time before. However, this flies in the face of it being an analogue, which shouldn't be too different from lsd either. Or else it would be identifiable at least from its list of effects.

Assuming set and setting were duplicated on the next trial as much as possible, it could be an interesting, amateur experiment to try out different batches this way. Maybe set and setting affects others more or less as a whole.

But even if it turned out to be an analogue, how would anyone really know for sure just by taking it only? As in, would they be able to identify which analogue it is? That seems objectively difficult.

My guess is that the dose can vary substantially at times, so that may be the more likely factor. It's hard to see the reasoning behind passing off lsd as one of its analogues instead, unless there was a mistake from hearsay somewhere down the line.

 

[Incunabula]

I felt like I heard somewhere that lsd can be lab tested legally nowadays, but umm...maybe not.

If you live in the UK, you can get it tested for free at wedinos (it is for free, Isn't?). Otherwise energy control in spain does it for 50 euros. The netherlands has some testing services too, I think, aswell as switzerland. In USA there is ecstacydata.org but they charge money aswell if it's not in a pill. I don't know if they are set up to test LSD though.

It's hard to see the reasoning behind passing off lsd as one of its analogues instead, unless there was a mistake from hearsay somewhere down the line.

You mean why someone would sell a LSD analog as LSD? I listed a few reasons in my second post in this thread.

Also remember, most freaks at a festival or some such that wants to score LSD, don't want something called ss-LSZ or LS-sec-B or LSM775, and a lenghty explanation of what it is, and how it's like LSD, just a bit shorter duration, or a bit more speedy or what have you. You see, it's much easier to say "it's LSD, dude, want some?". Because the poor sods probably aren't going to feel any difference anyway. Knowledge of RC's isn't as big as one would think once one ventures outside of bluelight.
Also, the first resellers of a batch of a clandestinely synthesized LSD analog might now what it is, but that information is quickly lost once it starts to change hands down the ladder, until it reaches it's consumer, as "hey, it's LSD, the white crystal, dude, want some?".

Anyway, I agree with what you say, and I don't think that LSD analogs are very commonly distributed at all, I just think they are out there, and I don't think they are the sole factor behind the phenomenon discussed in this thread. But they might be in a few cases.

We can speculate all day, and spout our favored hypotheses around, but without some kind of scientific evidence it's really pointless. Yes, most of the hypotheses are plausible, absolutely. Which one to believe in? Maybe all of them are true at the same time, who knows? I know I don't. Trying to use logic with insufficient data isn't going to lead anyone to the truth.

 

[MrHH]

Mmmhhh, I didn't think it was possible to create a 100% pure compound Are you sure, they just aren't telling you because they see it as unimportant? Did they explicitly say "100% pure"?


I don't really think it works like that. There is no "analysis device" were when you just stick the LSD-blotter in, it then returns a read out that says "congratulations, you have LSD". The results from the analysis needs to be interpreted by a human. And I think that different methods of analysing are more or less precise.

This article on erowid is from 2004, but I think it's still up to date. Among other things, it talks of the difficulty of analysing LSD. https://www.erowid.org/lsd_analysis

Well, in theory they use GC/MS + HPLC + UV, so they are really qualified even to quantify how much LSD there is for every blotter...

Even if LSD it's not 100% pure, I guess that when I send them a lab for testing and they return something like "167 ug per blotter" it's something "more or less" accurate... I always thought they refer to 167ug of 100% LSD (maybe the crystal used was of 70% purity, let's say, so they really used 238ug to lay the blotter? The rest should be just diluents unable to alter the experience right?

Maybe I am completely wrong... but it would be nice to know more about it since it's quite interesting

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Dosage, your personal mindstate when you take the drug, set, and setting.

 

[bebekbu]

Dosage, your personal mindstate when you take the drug, set, and setting.

My experience support all these factors.
Dosage not only changes the intensity of the trip, but it also changes the quality of the experience.
We might often not know the real dosage as blotters don't always contain the quantity that is advertised.
State of mind, set, setting are well known to greatly shape the LSD experience.

 

[Incunabula]

Well, in theory they use GC/MS + HPLC + UV, so they are really qualified even to quantify how much LSD there is for every blotter...

Even if LSD it's not 100% pure, I guess that when I send them a lab for testing and they return something like "167 ug per blotter" it's something "more or less" accurate... I always thought they refer to 167ug of 100% LSD (maybe the crystal used was of 70% purity, let's say, so they really used 238ug to lay the blotter? The rest should be just diluents unable to alter the experience right?

Yes, absolutely, something like that, except the last line, we don't know that because no proper experiments have been done on wether iso-LSD can alter a trip or not. I'm not saying I think it can, I'm just saying that like the other possibilities we can't discredit it yet.
And yes, that's what I meant about them not telling you about the impurities, they think it's unimportant, and they probably couldn't tell you what all of it is anyway. Have you read the link from the erowid article on LSD analysis that I posted in my third post? In it, they analyse a brown microdot, with exactly GC/MS + HPLC + UV, and they identify LSD, something they think is iso-LSD, and then some other stuff they don't know what is, but they think some of it is unreacted ergotamine. So you see, EC is going to find you blotters to be like that too, but they'll still tell you "it's just LSD".

@priesttheycalledhim and bebeku. I'm not saying you are wrong, you might be right, but subjective experience means nothing in science, for instance, I have another personal subjective experience of this phenomenon than you do. Were's the double blind test to prove your point? right, it doesn't exist. So were does that leave us?

That dosage changes a trip though, that's kind of obvious isn't it? doh :D

 

[Kl519]

If you live in the UK, you can get it tested for free at wedinos (it is for free, Isn't?). Otherwise energy control in spain does it for 50 euros. The netherlands has some testing services too, I think, aswell as switzerland. In USA there is ecstacydata.org but they charge money aswell if it's not in a pill. I don't know if they are set up to test LSD though.


You mean why someone would sell a LSD analog as LSD? I listed a few reasons in my second post in this thread.

Also remember, most freaks at a festival or some such that wants to score LSD, don't want something called ss-LSZ or LS-sec-B or LSM775, and a lenghty explanation of what it is, and how it's like LSD, just a bit shorter duration, or a bit more speedy or what have you. You see, it's much easier to say "it's LSD, dude, want some?". Because the poor sods probably aren't going to feel any difference anyway. Knowledge of RC's isn't as big as one would think once one ventures outside of bluelight.
Also, the first resellers of a batch of a clandestinely synthesized LSD analog might now what it is, but that information is quickly lost once it starts to change hands down the ladder, until it reaches it's consumer, as "hey, it's LSD, the white crystal, dude, want some?".

Anyway, I agree with what you say, and I don't think that LSD analogs are very commonly distributed at all, I just think they are out there, and I don't think they are the sole factor behind the phenomenon discussed in this thread. But they might be in a few cases.

We can speculate all day, and spout our favored hypotheses around, but without some kind of scientific evidence it's really pointless. Yes, most of the hypotheses are plausible, absolutely. Which one to believe in? Maybe all of them are true at the same time, who knows? I know I don't. Trying to use logic with insufficient data isn't going to lead anyone to the truth.

I see, lol, my apologies for missing that. For the lulz would be pretty funny. But who really knows is an apt way to put it.

I wholly agree with what you said too. We're just giving two different opinions, but without enough data, yeah, back to the "who really knows" again.

It's fun to speculate on here though, well, as long as we all know we're just speculating!