Lysergamides White fluff LSD vs Needlepoint LSD

[LucidSDreamr]

isn't the guy talking about acid from 30 years ago that was never tested? I haven't been following the whole argument but he's saying that different batches or stamps gave different quality trips....something totally explainable by saying one chemist used diethyl amides and the other used isopropyl/methyl amides, etc....which where all known since 1950


its even known that pickard was making amide analogoues of LSD during his time....which would account for different batches of acid giving different flavours of trips


now if people are saying that different trips were obtained from TESTED batches that TESTED as only LSD with no other amide isomers present.....then thats not possible

 

[LSD Cruiser]

Haha, well the debate is a little back-and-forth and pedantic at times so I haven't really been able to follow it all completely either honestly. It's all in good fun though. You have a plausible theory in possibility but not as much in likelihood I humbly hold the opinion. LSD is the only lysergamide I am aware of that has ever been detected in any analysis until AL-LAD and LSZ were produced. It's possible Pickard produced some analogues - I just know that was never found to be the case in any blotters from his group that were analyzed (which his crystal was found to almost always be in the 60-70% range, the rest being iso-LSD.) I'd be interested to know your source of info that Pickard ever did produce analogues. Krystal Cole in my opinion is a professional bullshitter who wouldn't know one way or another what Pickard was doing as many of her tales have been proven by her peers to be just that, tales. (She was a very naive 18-year-old little girl who knew nothing of drugs at that time.) I've sent in blotters from Europe that were suspected to be analogues (LSB, LSP) by paranoid forum-dwellers and that's not been the finding.
As you probably know Nick Sand recanted his statement that the Orange Sunshine 'back in the good old days' was ALD-52 and said this was just a failed legal defense (as obvious as it seemed based on the synthesis.) I doubt the online reports of ALD-52 on the internet are true, but who knows, maybe someone isn't bullshitting us. Just never seen any proof they aren't.

 

[Ismene]

I have read a couple very interesting studies cited that claimed the impurities had "no effects" by themselves but I have not seen any studies on what they will do to an LSD trip(combined with LSD).
-So to me their is still a possibility that some of these impurities could effect the subtle qualities of a LSD experience.
-I also have some doubt if all the possible impurities that can be produced in the manufacture of LSD have been tested.

But how could something that's inactive be activated by LSD? When does this happen anywhere else?

And ideas about mysterious, unknown impurities are pretty unlikely. I think occams razor has to come into play. LSD is an incredibly powerful drug with a vast range of effects that can be explained simply by it being LSD. Everything can be explained simply be peoples subjective experience of LSD.

 

[tired of crap]

But how could something that's inactive be activated by LSD? When does this happen anywhere else?

Now I havent read the entire thread (nor do I care to), nor do I claim to have any clue.

But perhaps "inactives" are activated by LSD ala a "tomso" effect. See Shulgins take on alcohol activating TOMSO here

 

[TheRapperGoneBad]

Lsd is lsd how would you ever know unless you made it and laid it your self. To you ^ interesting

 

[buildersoftime]

But perhaps "inactives" are activated by LSD ala a "tomso" effect. See Shulgins take on alcohol activating TOMSO here

I knew that someone would mention TOMSO at some point

It's not the same though. It's active in its own right (shulgin found the threshold at 150mg oral), but is potentiated by alcohol consumtion. Flatline is not talking about potentiation, rather activation of a pharmacologically inactive compound by combining it with it's active isomer. As far as I know, there has never been an example of this happening (I might be wrong - can anyone find an example in the literature?).

Look. It's easy to come up with increasingly wild hypotheses as your'e backed into a corner but without any experimental evidence, theyre just ideas. This is what flatline does not understand. It's not up to us to systematically disprove each of his/her imaginings. If (s)he claims something, (s)he needs to substantiate it.

The same happens in the medical pharma commiunity. Lundbeck has been widely criticised for claiming that escitalopram is a better drug than it's racemate, citalopram. As always the burden of proof is on them to substatiate their claims, something that, as far as I know. Theyve failed to do.

In Lundbeck's case. They are hoping to extend the benefits of exclusive sales through a patent extension. In the case of LSD, dealers in a highly competitive environment are hoping to make their product more attractive than anyone elses. So they use the poorly understood 'clean acid' argument to bullshit their way into money. In both cases, the effects of the drug are highly subject to interpretation due to variances in set and setting.

 

[Ismene]

Now I havent read the entire thread (nor do I care to), nor do I claim to have any clue.

But perhaps "inactives" are activated by LSD ala a "tomso" effect. See Shulgins take on alcohol activating TOMSO here

I'd still lean towards the simple answer first tho - that LSD has a vast range of effects all by itself because that's obvious every time you trip. You trip on one blotter one week and feel great, you take the same blotter 2 weeks later and feel shit. That's a pretty big range of effects.

To me, that sounds more likely than mysterious inactives being activated by LSD into becoming more powerful than LSD.

 

[flat-line]

If you require a different method of citation than the entirety of academia, theres not much more that can be done for you here. You seem unwilling or incapable of following the chain of eidence but instead want someone else to do the reading for you, predigest it and then convince you of its validity while you jump up and down telling them that they're wrong.

A citation is a reference for someone to find the material that is being cited. Tossing a name out their and possibly a year is not a citation. Your “citations” have no studies or written material attached to them only names, like you are trying to say “I am right and these names are ….” ? in my post ?

Any standard citation formats would work just fine,

Standard citation formats-

MLA - Art, Literature, and the Humanities
APA - Psychology and the Social Sciences
Chicago- History, Humanities, and the Sciences

http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/?option=com_content&view=article&id=130
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity/pages/styles/

On the internet a link to the page is usually used, along with CTRL+F the cited materiel can be easily found.

Look. It's easy to come up with increasingly wild hypotheses as your'e backed into a corner but without any experimental evidence, theyre just ideas. This is what flatline does not understand. It's not up to us to systematically disprove each of his/her imaginings. If (s)he claims something, (s)he needs to substantiate it.

I am not trying to disprove anything. I am only looking for enough facts to make a solid discussion which I have not seen.
Tossing name of scientists is not proof or facts. Do these scientist have studies about the subject ? If so where I would love to see them.

Also tossing out a blurb about this impurity is not active doesn’t prove that all impurities that can be produced are inactive and inactive combined with LSD.

Has a complete study been done about all of the impurities that can be found in a tab of LSD ? And if they will alter the subtle qualities of an LSD experience ? NO, not that has been proven.

 

[infantannihilator]

How is this discussion still going on?

 

[Ismene]

I don't think anyone will bother to prove it flatline because there's more chance of fairies being at the bottom of the garden.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

I'd still lean towards the simple answer first tho - that LSD has a vast range of effects all by itself because that's obvious every time you trip. You trip on one blotter one week and feel great, you take the same blotter 2 weeks later and feel shit. That's a pretty big range of effects.

To me, that sounds more likely than mysterious inactives being activated by LSD into becoming more powerful than LSD.

not saying I believe this theory....but lets say you have inactive lsd isomers that bind to a certain 5-HT receptor subtypes (but have no efficacy, or do not cause any response) as an antagonist. If they bind stronger that lSd....they are preventing lsd from hitting those receptor subtypes and lsd is only hitting the 5-HT2a....and not these other ones as it normally would since the antagonist is blocking them. when you have no impurities (the antagonists) lsd can hit all the 5-HT receptors it normally would and you get a different experience.

This is just a hypothetical answer to your question I have no proof that this is possible with lsd...but it certainly has been researched with with other drugs

 

[Ismene]

Interesting theory lucid. Any idea why all these impurities have to make you feel "dirty"?

 

[LucidSDreamr]

Interesting theory lucid. Any idea why all these impurities have to make you feel "dirty"?

because they are not letting lsd bind to a receptor subtype that allows lsd to impart a "clean" feeling to the trip. lsd is only able to bind to receptors not bound by these impurities (which have no efficacy in the receptors they are sitting in, they only block them)...and the effects of lsd on these unoccupied receptors is what is felt. instead of with pure lsd the effects of lsd on the previously blocked receptors can now be felt and predominate over the effects from receptors that lsd can only hit when it is mixed with lsd/impurity

 

[red22]

The only difference is going to be placebo I'm afraid. Even Owsley understood this - back in the late 60s he got sick of hearing hippies saying "This acid is better than that acid dude" so what he did was make a batch of acid then mix it with different food dyes. Sure enough within a week or two he started hearing "The green acid is righteously mellow, the yellow acid is clean and the brown acid is a bummer dude".

Owsley examined marketing considerations and decided to vary the dye on the crystal, instead of using only one shade. He took five ordinary food colourings, as approved by the Food and Drugs Administration for the food industry, and divided the LSD into 3,600 doses per gram. Each gram was split into five, mixed with dye and put into capsules. Although there was no difference between the capsules, the street dealers reported back that the users were giving the colours different qualities: red was considered laid back; green frantic; and blue the ideal compromise. Point Richmond began churning out 'Blue Cheer', as the capsules were dubbed by users.


Stewart Tendler and David May. The Brotherhood of Eternal Love. Chapter 6: Outlaw Days

 

[LSD Cruiser]

not saying I believe this theory....but lets say you have inactive lsd isomers that bind to a certain 5-HT receptor subtypes (but have no efficacy, or do not cause any response) as an antagonist. If they bind stronger that lSd....they are preventing lsd from hitting those receptor subtypes and lsd is only hitting the 5-HT2a....and not these other ones as it normally would since the antagonist is blocking them. when you have no impurities (the antagonists) lsd can hit all the 5-HT receptors it normally would and you get a different experience.

This is just a hypothetical answer to your question I have no proof that this is possible with lsd...but it certainly has been researched with with other drugs

If iso-LSD is an antagonist it should weaken the effects of the LSD but I'm not so sure about the ability to cause body load. It would be more likely to do the opposite, IMO. I'm fairly certain conventional theory would dictate that requires some sort of physiological response without LSD present. If there's potentiation then degraded product should cause this so-called 'dirty feeling' and I guarantee you that wouldn't be someone's typical reporting. I've certainly never heard someone say old blotters made them feel worse.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

i don't think just because a receptor binds that guarantees any physiological response....or even neccessarily any biochemical response at all. just because we know a tiny shred of info that the most common byproducts of lsd might not be that active in some narrow viewed sense that we looked at isn't the last word as pharmacology is so complex there is alot we don't know about whats going on. We actually dont have it all figured out believe it or not. not to mention any strange by products that couldve arised in a synth due to inconsistenscies in tech or reagents or whatever.

 

[BlueHues]

My subjective experience with "dirty acid"...The blotters were usually bitter with a chem taste that made your tongue tingle, and it was always pretty much how people classically describe it....slightly psychedelic, but more speedy and pins and needle feeling....I've had it several times in my life as has most people who've ever been around different places where different blotters were being sold....I understand it's supposed to be scientifically impossible, but how do you account for it...It's just such a common experience...this was way before nbome so it wasn't that...

This kind of acid was like, you could take 4 and only be kind of tripping, but mostly feeling more high like you'd taken some other drug...the good shit, you take 2 and you'd be soaring, no bitter taste usually either....Whatever it was, or whatever the explanation for it, "dirty acid" is real...Whether it's simply weak LSD or something else I have no idea...

 

[red22]

Yeah, I've had the dirty acid that the above user describes, although I don't recall any particular taste. Anyway, no one's suggesting that the LSD itself has a different structure than normal LSD, but that perhaps impurities -- other ergoline alkaloids -- were made stronger by the LSD synthesis, making them psychoactive in tiny doses.


Here's further support of this. Here is a list from chinacat72's Shroomery thread, LSD: Crystal to Blotter. Take note that the lowest grade LSD is "champagne" (50-60% purity) and chinacat says, "black crystal, nasty stuff IMHO. I worked with it once and swore to never touch it again."


TYPES OF CRYSTAL
Needlepoint-very pure(95%) white powerdery crystal,was available in small amount`s. The best of the best (grin)
White Fluff-Very pure(95%) white light flakes of crystal. Still around and the most sought after. very pure
Silver-Good and clean(85-90%)-light greyish crystal. Was an unbelievable amount of this around in the late eighty`s and early nineties. Very good stuff. My first thumbprint was this kind. If you ate acid in the 80-90`s you probably sampled some silver.
Amber-Decent(70%?) This crystal varied from a light amber color to an almost dark brown color.Was always available.One batch called quadricept amber was the color of light honey and was very good.Lot`s a people worked with this crystal but I always would use silver instead since it was better and the same price.
Lavender-(60-70%?) light purple to almost black colored crystal. Like amber it varied batch to batch.
TJ(tornado juice) - purity unknown. I seen this shit in about four different colors and it always scared me. No experiance with it.
Champagne-(50-60%) black crystal, nasty stuff IMHO. I worked with it once and swore to never touch it again.

 

[LSD Cruiser]

Lucid, pharmacology is a complex constantly developing field of science. You are at least right on one thing: this isn't the last time we'll be having this discussion. For now we can only follow what we know at the present and use that to get the bigger picture until something else comes around and completely changes the way we see the picture.

Blue, the pins and needles feeling you describe is known as vasoconstriction. This is normal with LSD and just can't be said to be a result of impurity, but rather physiology. Levels of vasoconstriction vary with dosage and one's physical factors at the time of dosing. For example if you are out in the bitter cold snow, you are going to probably have considerably more pins-and-needles feeling while on LSD than sitting in your warm-and-comfy living room. For myself I notice vasoconstriction more heavily on lower doses. This I attribute to the fact that I'm not "out of this world" enough to be able to ignore my physical effects. If it's dirty LSD I'm consuming then for some reason it's only dirty in small doses.

Red22, What you are neglecting to realize is that other impurities of LSD besides its stereoisomer iso-LSD have never been both detected and quantified after synthesis to the best of my knowledge. That is to say they are practically undetectable, unidentifiable and not really worth mentioning other than for dispute. Factors such as epimerization, inversion, and polymerism do not allow for the generation of a significant amount of byproducts besides LSD's isomers. The reason for this as was mentioned by yours truly a few pages back is because of the carbon atom at the 8-position and its double bond linking it to the 5-position, rendering a very touchy molecule.

In the same post you will see I mentioned that the crystal of LSD forms its lattice structure with a great deal of difficulty. For that reason the appearance will be different each batch no matter the purity. You can't look at LSD and say it's purity/worth is this-or-that. I am afraid to say with a great deal of accuracy that ChinaCat72 (IF that is his real name ) is a misinformed former drug dealer unaware of LSD's actual science. To spread such as fact is a blasphemy to the force of science. Without quantitative analysis you cannot determine purity. You can't even come close.

 

[buildersoftime]

because they are not letting lsd bind to a receptor subtype that allows lsd to impart a "clean" feeling to the trip. lsd is only able to bind to receptors not bound by these impurities (which have no efficacy in the receptors they are sitting in, they only block them)...and the effects of lsd on these unoccupied receptors is what is felt. instead of with pure lsd the effects of lsd on the previously blocked receptors can now be felt and predominate over the effects from receptors that lsd can only hit when it is mixed with lsd/impurity

So you're saying that iso-LSD is a seretonin receptor antagonist? Which serotonin receptors does it bind to? It's just strange that in all the work profiling iso-LSD, nobody noticed this.

I understand it's supposed to be scientifically impossible

It's not impossible in the slightest. It's just that claims require evidence and iso-LSD has been found time and time again to be inactive.

This kind of acid was like, you could take 4 and only be kind of tripping, but mostly feeling more high like you'd taken some other drug...the good shit, you take 2 and you'd be soaring, no bitter taste usually either....Whatever it was, or whatever the explanation for it, "dirty acid" is real...Whether it's simply weak LSD or something else I have no idea...

You seem to describing the effects from a weak dose of LSD. Barely psychedelic effects, a speedy feeling and disproportionate body load are all indicative of an under-dose, which is what you would expect from an impure batch which might only contain 10% Good stuff to 90% inactives.