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

[LSD Subthread] The Clean vs. Dirty Acid Debate (Part 1 - Archived)

I think that many particle physicists wouldnt really argue too much with you if you said that piezoluminescence or even strong emf was magic or directly God's doing...

electron behavior may fall into the realm of hard science, but really when you look at it...
 
Has anyone ever known the ratio of D-LSD to D-iso-LSD in the samples they've taken and can reflect on the significance of it?

Does the ratio of D-LSD to D-iso-LSD change with time on blotter? Has anyone looked at this?

Is there a change in the quality of the acid high over time beyond potency?
Is there such a thing as an "old acid" high?
 
I know zip about chemistry and the human CNS and brain function, but a theory:

If the manufacturer (the synthesizer) does "cut corners" and ends up with a product full of impurities that have to be seperated with a difficult procedure, what says your body can seperate them either?

So perhaps these impurities, or the three stereoisomers of LSD, are still present when it bonds to whatever it bonds to, be it vesicle or reuptake receptor or whatever. So this affects how your body uses the LSD. For instance, if you take a softball (LSD) and plug it into a softball-sized tube (the tissue LSD attaches to), and then you take a softball with large, marble-sized lumps (LSD with those heavily-attached impurities) all over it and try to fit it in the same tube, it may have to be rearranged in order for it to fit so it is stuck in this tube. Therefore it could change how the LSD effects the user.

This is a theory and I know nothing about this stuff, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I want to know about this, too.

--mic
 
J. Alfred Prufrock said:
Does the ratio of D-LSD to D-iso-LSD change with time on blotter? Has anyone looked at this?

Is there a change in the quality of the acid high over time beyond potency?
Is there such a thing as an "old acid" high?


Yes yes yes and yes. I will find a source right now... (keep in mind, its still speculation, nothing conclusive, but yes there ARE some studies on this)

*** EDIT ***

Here is a link (http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showpost.php?p=2196682&postcount=8) to a previous post I made on a similar thread in the past. I highlighted the important part in bold...
 
Last edited:
This is a theory and I know nothing about this stuff, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I want to know about this, too.

The isomers of LSD (and possible impurities like ergotamine) all interact with at least some of the receptors that d-LSD interacts with, just to different degrees, so their presence will have some effect on the overall feel of the intoxication
 
fastandbulbous said:
The isomers of LSD (and possible impurities like ergotamine) all interact with at least some of the receptors that d-LSD interacts with, just to different degrees, so their presence will have some effect on the overall feel of the intoxication

Wonderful, I always had a sneaking suspcion. But could that even be entertained as the sole impersonal cause for these different trips?

--mic
 
The soul cause?
Hell No!- consider the different highs you can get off a standard drug depending on your state of mind.

Set and setting effect things tremendously. These chemical differences and possible karmic interference are just more of our mental masterbaition. Whos to say that a god chemist hasn't transcended karma, or that the acid starts degrading immediately after it is produced.
 
The difference between "science" and "magic" is time.
 
I definitely do believe that their is clean and dirty acid. I wont get into the advanced chemistry here, one because it has been discussed and two because I am still learning more about these chemicals. I think that the trip depends on the ratios of the 4 isomers and has nothing to do with karma or the intent that the cook has. Pure high grade lsd is pure high grade lsd. It doesnt matter who made it or what their intentions were. If you are a good chemist with lots of knowledge on lsd and you dont take shortcuts you can get some very pure shit. If you cut corners then you will obviously be left with a less pure product. If lsd were legal and chemical companies made it like sandoz did back in the day then we would have some pure lsd on the streets. Most research chemicals are 99.8%+ pure and if these same companies made lsd you can bet your ass it will be the same. The intentions would be soley monetary and I doubt that the trip would lack anything that a Karamic cooks lsd would have. I still think lsd is a gift too us and that your karma might enable you to cook up some pure ass lsd but that is not to say that the biggest scum on the earth couldnt cook up some acid that was equally as divine and potent as Owsley acid, sandoz acid, Hofmann acid or any other acid cooked by someone with great Karma. just my .02 I have taken acid plenty of times and have definitely noticed that different batches can be clean or dirty. The side effects are incerease beause LSd is like a key and any impurities make the key fit to the receptors less perfectly.

check out this article it is great.
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_writings1.shtml

honestly this is just my opinion. There are still many things about lsd that remain a mystery and might always remain that way.
 
Xorkoth said:
The difference between "science" and "magic" is time.

i'd paraphrase that as the difference between Magick and Science is Will to Power.

which, of course, must assume an underlying time component - until a 'critical mass' is reached...
 
Gee, I thought that article is lame other than the comment about compounds that will not react with PDAB (as would be found with 2-substituted impurities such as 2-oxo-ergots). Otherwise, myth building in my opinion.

Where's the analytical data
to support 4 isomers of LSD ever being found in street samples of acid? Where's the data to support the hypothesis that the relative amounts of the two isomers that have been consistently reported (D-LSD & D-iso-LSD) in samples making any difference in the high?

When hypothesis is taken as fact is when myths are constructed. And when myths in any way bolster the notion of someone having some advanced experience or inside knowledge in a subject, I'm even more skeptical. On top of the list for me is the notion that there are subtle changes in experience from different sources/conditions of drugs. I'm sure it's true in some cases, but on the other hand, it's like you're a bunch of wine connoisseurs or some shit. What's next? A spirited debate on who's ego died the most?

Poor little 'ol me....when I drink beer, it always get the same high. When I smoke pot, yeah, it's pretty much always the same too. Maybe I'm simply not tuned in enough to my experiences to notice the differences, whether it's with LSD or cannabis, but to me, acid is acid, the stronger the better..& impurities have no effect.

I might not have eaten as much paper as some of you freaks, but I do have a sensitive nose for bullshit. Either think-out-of-the-box or UTFSE, that's what I say.
 
Where's the data to support the hypothesis that the relative amounts of the two isomers that have been consistently reported (D-LSD & D-iso-LSD) in samples making any difference in the high?

Well there are papers that have receptor affinities for iso-LSD, ergotamine (& other substituted lysergamides) etc. so by extrapolating you can see that they will have some effect by increasing agonism at some receptors and not others. That said, the effect will be subtle unless you're talking about either large doses (500ug+ of the mixture of compounds sold as acid) or smaller doses of highly degraded acid (where the ratio of LSD:iso-LSD is approaching 1:1 or greater).

I might not have eaten as much paper as some of you freaks, but I do have a sensitive nose for bullshit.

I'm fairly certain I have as well, but in the above outlined cases it's just pharmacology in action...
 
Man, we must have at least a half a dozen threads with people arguing over this topic.

I first heard of this 'bad acid' thing back in the 70's and I've yet to encounter any of it. The original rumor was that it had strychnine in it. I've allways taken the 'bad acid' thing to be mostly a result of bad set and setting.

But still, I'm not going to rule out that impurities in a drug can affect the high, as its pretty obvious they can, and I don't see why LSD would be any different. I most certainly do get different effects from different types of weed, because there are different compositions of canabanoids in weed. And back when I was a speed freak, I got different effects from different batches of street speed. If there are different chemicals in d-LSD other than LSD (including both isomers and other synthetic by products) I don't see why they couldn't affect the experience in some people. Though I've never detected such effects. I think set and setting make much more difference.
 
gloggawogga said:
I think set and setting make much more difference.

I'm sure anyone with any drug taking experience can attest to this.

Think about this:

You're drinking a top shelf liquor with a bunch of snobby assholes
vs
You're drinking bum wine with good friends.

Which is gonna produce the better high? In my opinion this should totally clear up any confusion on the matter. Of course, good shit with good friends can be better.
 
Yes, set & setting is the most plausible explanation, for now. Just as with different strains of mushrooms, set & setting is the most plausible explanation for the variance in effects. Up to this day there's still no evidence to suggest that the variance in effects is due to different chemicals.
 
Obviously there is too much to disagree about here, but I'm sorry, there is definitely a degradation that occurs in LSD during storage... and anyone who's ever had vials and vials of the pure stuff knows that after months go by, the trip changes. It's not set and setting! It's actual physical effects and feelings that are there that weren't there when the vial was fresh out of the lab.

What's more is that throughout ALL of the 200 or so vials that I've gone through in my life, this is a cycle that ALWAYS happened. You get a fresh vial, its amazingly pure and clean, no ill physical effects from it, so easy to forget that you took any acid at all (as far as body feelings go). But then if that same vial happened to still be around after 6 months or so, the very same acid which still allowed me to trip, would start giving me the physical feelings that I've come to associate over the years with "bad acid" (but more accurately just "decomposing acid").

And if this were set and setting, I could write those feelings off as just that, and come back another time and it will be just like the vial is fresh, right? Then how come it NEVER works this way? In my whole entire acid-taking career, once the acid starts to decompose (I suppose that's just my theory, although Shulgin doesn't disagree with me) it stays decomposed, and the ill physical feelings are there for good. There is a definite pattern there, and anyone who's had the opportunity to go through hundreds of vials in their time should be able to see where I'm coming from.

I can't prove it, but my first-hand anecdotal experience is worth way more than the line "acid is acid." NOPE! There is pure acid, and there's acid that's not pure and causes flu-like body aches (but don't get me wrong, the trip is still there, its just affected by the decomposed drug). Whether or not the acid got this way due to normal decomp-over-time, or if it was poorly synthesized, the result is still the same.

And it gets progressively more noticeable. One time I found an old empty acid vial in my closet, that I had forgotten about. It had to have been in my closet for about a year and a half. Since I didn't have any fresh acid at the time, I figured I would cut the vial open and lick the inside of it, which I did. And let me tell you, the physical feelings I got from it were so ill-feeling, all I could do was lay on my couch the whole night watching movies. It doesn't result in a "bad trip" or anything, that's not what I'm saying. I mean mind over matter and stuff... I can always have a good time and make the best of it. I'm just saying physically it makes me feel slightly ill, where clean, fresh acid makes me feel like I didn't take a drug at all (except for that electricity taste that's always there on any amount of acid).

I'm done ranting.
 
I did believe that the effects would be subtly different, but if its really like that, then woah. I just havent had too much experience, I guess.
 
and anyone who's ever had vials and vials of the pure stuff knows that after months go by, the trip changes.

I have and I have never experienced such changes in effects.

It's not set and setting! It's actual physical effects and feelings that arethere that weren't there when the vial was fresh out of the lab.

Well then why don't I get these effects with older batches of acid?

What's more is that throughout ALL of the 200 or so vials that I've gone through in my life, this is a cycle
that ALWAYS happened.
I could write those feelings off as just that, and come back another time and it will be just like the vial is fresh, right? Then how come it NEVER works this way?

Set == expectations == placebo effect. You've gone through 200 vials and you've never heard of that? You quite obviously by your language very strongly believe its gonna happen, don't you think that flavors your experience? And do you really think you can just write a feeling off if you believe it so deeply? I mean the extent to which you come off so certain of your self is what makes me wonder to what extent your expectations are shaping your experiences.
 
Last edited:
Top