View Full Version : "unclean" acid trip report & questions
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?
"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:
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?
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
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.
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:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.