• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Lysergamides White fluff LSD vs Needlepoint LSD

It's not ridiculous blue baby -what you believe is a self-perpetuating fallacy. You'd say to another clueless kid at a dead concert "Dude, fluff is righteously mellow" and because he didn't have a clue he'd believe you. So you grew up around an endless series of clueless people telling each other the same bullshit. Why wouldn't you believe it with your heart and soul? It's not a case of facts to you - it's a matter of faith.

People a bit younger who've grown up with knowledge available on the internet realise it was all clueless hippie bullshit. Of course it's going to be hard for you to accept that you've spent your life believing something that isn't true but them's the breaks.

Btw, don't take this personally - I like your stories of being at dead gigs back in the day, I just don't buy your theories about "better" forms of LSD.
 
my understanding is that needlepoint/swiss/fluff ect. are in the 90% pure crystal range
amber/lavender/champagne are 30-80% pure crystal
so if a g is laid on the same amount of paper, its just weaker, not "dirty"

i have never had "champagne" but ive supposedly tried the rest and never noticed a correlation between names and unwanted(or special) effects. it usually depends more on how much i dosed, my environment, and what i have been doing and eating.
 
I heard that needlepoint LSD was actually so PURE it came in a long string wound round a spool, so that you can do needlepoint with it.
 
^^
You should've seen the patterns they came up with then they were embroidering too
 
You and your 74 posts are quite presumptuous....

Dude! I juste acknowledged your explanation, judging it satisfying enough that it could be the last word. I even thanked you! And you keep bitching? You must be a horrible person!
 
So can we sum this conversation up as people who like to believe things they're told on one side of the debate and people who rely on facts and evidence on the other?

If so, which side is likely to be right?
 
So can we sum this conversation up as people who like to believe things they're told on one side of the debate and people who rely on facts and evidence on the other?

If so, which side is likely to be right?

^Facts and evidence?! Have you studied LSD?

No, this is more like an argument between someone who actually had almost unlimited access to LSD in their lifetime and a bunch of people who've probably seen it a handul of times, if at all!!

whatever, I'm done wih this...
 
What did all that LSD teach you blue? Tolerance, humour, empathy?

It doesn't sound like it taught you much humility.
 
^Facts and evidence?! Have you studied LSD?

No, this is more like an argument between someone who actually had almost unlimited access to LSD in their lifetime and a bunch of people who've probably seen it a handul of times, if at all!!

whatever, I'm done wih this...

Just because you had almost unlimited access to LSD doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about. You are presenting nothing scientific, it is all bull that you have come up with based on your subjective experience of LSD. If you knew anything about how LSD works, you would know that LSD distorts your subjective perceptions and thus subjective rationalization of what LSD is or should be is not realistic or scientifically quantifiable. LSD directly affects your own subjective reality, it is one of the things that makes LSD so profound and absolutely mind-boggling! Your entire argument is flawed.
 
^I don't claim to be some LSD guru...I took a fair amount of it, but mostly I sold it...

Humility?
 
I provided the evidence that only LSD and its isomers can be present, read a page back over again, there is lots of actual data for you to digest. Unfortunately it is against the rules to post synthesis or I would show you step-by-step the process. Yes, we've studied LSD. I can't speak for the others participating in this thread but I do work in the field of organic chemistry. Dealing sheets or even pages only gives you subjective knowledge. I will not speak for my involvement with LSD besides what I post in the "Acid in America" thread found HERE. Your senseless attacks because you are cornered by logic is ungrounded. No one even dissed the Dead scene. Personally, I would not be in existence if the Dead weren't still touring in the '80s.
 
What exactly is the logic I've been presented with here?

I'm supposed to believe that all LSD, regardless of how it's sold, who it's sold by or how it's made is all the same?!

I'm sorry, I just don't think that's true....I'm willing to believe that in most cases the differences are probably due to potency, but I've seen shit that pretty much made everyone sick, maybe it wasn't LSD at all...I don't know, but what exactly are we disagreeing about here? I'm not really sure...

These days, where there's several different drugs being sold on blotter paper....with that going on, I don't see how someone's "scientific" explanation of LSD basically boils down to, "It's all the same!"

I don't care anymore, I don't sell LSD or have any involvement with it....I took some "acid" that someone gave me a little over a year ago and it definitely wasn't LSD, but it didn't have that "dirty" feeling either...

If you honestly think that everyone who's ever had "dirty LSD" is wrong, fine....I've seen variations in a lot of the street drugs I've done that everyone else who used it noticed too, I guess all drugs all pure and everything else is all in my head...I'll keep that in mind...
 
You're not getting the point.

There is no such thing as "dirty" LSD because if it is LSD, it is LSD.

What logic would dictate that using a different synthesis to make LSD would lead to a different end result? If it did then its no longer LSD and that's an entirely different subject as it is no longer and LSD synthesis is it? The only thing that has been refuted is the assertion that "dirty" LSD exists. LSD is LSD is LSD. Anything that is not LSD is not LSD. Any effects that you get from LSD are a result of LSD's vast spectrum of activity in the human body. What is so hard to understand about that?

EDIT: Maybe this image will help you understand why LSD has so many effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LSDaffinities.GIF

Anything below the horizontal line in the image has a binding affinity high enough that it is believed to be involved with LSD's effects. That's a very wide range of receptor affinities.

Nausea? Numerous 5-HT receptors are involved in that and LSD hits most of them: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10490049
 
Last edited:
I've never had needlepoint but I have had some white fluff and I can say if it's made purely it only takes one hit to elevate. Where as I was taking three hits with some random lsd to get the same feeling.
 
I've never had needlepoint but I have had some white fluff and I can say if it's made purely it only takes one hit to elevate. Where as I was taking three hits with some random lsd to get the same feeling.

Yeah because you're getting a higher dose of LSD with the white fluff hit. Note that you said you get the same feeling with three hits as you would with one hit of white fluff. That means that you have LSD in both cases but there is ~2/3rd more LSD per dose with the fluff. There are no other possible differences.
 
What exactly is the logic I've been presented with here?

I'm supposed to believe that all LSD, regardless of how it's sold, who it's sold by or how it's made is all the same?!

I'm sorry, I just don't think that's true....I'm willing to believe that in most cases the differences are probably due to potency, but I've seen shit that pretty much made everyone sick, maybe it wasn't LSD at all...I don't know, but what exactly are we disagreeing about here? I'm not really sure...

These days, where there's several different drugs being sold on blotter paper....with that going on, I don't see how someone's "scientific" explanation of LSD basically boils down to, "It's all the same!"

I don't care anymore, I don't sell LSD or have any involvement with it....I took some "acid" that someone gave me a little over a year ago and it definitely wasn't LSD, but it didn't have that "dirty" feeling either...

If you honestly think that everyone who's ever had "dirty LSD" is wrong, fine....I've seen variations in a lot of the street drugs I've done that everyone else who used it noticed too, I guess all drugs all pure and everything else is all in my head...I'll keep that in mind...

There's many different hypothetical approaches to synthesizing LSD starting at what precursors are available and what solvents work best for those precursors. Depending on the reactions that take place the end result is going to be (+)-D-LSD along with a varying degree of ISO-LSD. This doesn't change no matter the synthesis. ISO-LSD while still a stereoisomer of (+)-D-LSD is still "LSD", but it is what during the synthesis you are referring to as "dirty." Since the molecule of LSD is asymmetric with two stereocenters (C-5 and C-8,) this means four isomers can theoretically exist. So that leaves you with (-)-LSD and (-)-iso-LSD which will convert later on through the process after synthesis. None have the potential for activity in the body but (+)-D-LSD.

The reason other drugs but LSD can be cut and made impure is the fact their dosage is so much higher than LSD. MDMA for instance is active in tens of miligrams whereas LSD is only active in the tens of micrograms. Many many substances are active in similar ranges as MDMA, cocaine, heroin, meth, etc., making them much easier to add other drugs and inert substances to for increased profit or specific effects. Likely what you were selling in the 90s was LSD just at varying dosages. It wasn't until recently (NBOMes, NBOHs, NBFs, NBMD, etc.) that man has discovered chemicals that could fit on blotter in the dosages required (2mg and under.) As far as I'm aware DOM has been around for quite a while but in the 70s was referred to as "STP" more often than being passed off as LSD.

The fact that whatever you took that wasn't LSD felt cleaner also discredits you as all substances to date on blotter but LSD have been proven to have a worse safety profile. AL-LAD and LSZ may be the same but you didn't run across those a year ago, more likely an NBOMe which has killed people at dosages as low as 2mg and known to cause brain swelling.
 
Looky here now, if the chemist says three "Hail Jerry Garcias" while he's making the LSD it becomes fluff, otherwise it's just ordinary LSD.

LSD is an arrangment of atoms. It's impossible to create "dirty LSD". The atoms are either arranged in the correct lattice structure for LSD or they arn't, in which case it isn't LSD. The idea that there's some mysterious "dirty LSD" that is active at the same dosage as LSD but "makes you feel dirty" is complete horseshit. LSD has a vast range of effects and fluff AND needlepoint can give you "dirty" physical side effects just as much as cheap blotter.

I've seen variations in a lot of the street drugs I've done that everyone else who used it noticed too

Hold it blue - I explained this to you once before. YES your theory sort of works with powdered drugs like cocaine and heroin - because you can replace a handful of coke with a handful of laxative that's going to massively effect your experience. Snorting half a gram of laxative is definately going to make you feel dirty..and shitty too. LSD isn't like that - you can't "add" impurities to blotter. It's either LSD -in which case you feel it or you don't. Until a couple of years ago there was no other impurity active at blotter dose.
 
Last edited:
I really have no explanation for it....but I can see why people have speculated strychnine...

I'm really curious the context in which some of you guys have used LSD....It really used to that there was just a bunch of it floating around, a bunch of different kinds that you'd come across...and there were definite differences....I don't know why....most of it was probably just LSD in varying amounts, but there was stuff that came with unpleasant side effects...If you don't believe that, I really don't know what to tell you....
 
Top