• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

LSD Purity and Effects

@Phobos - Sorry I haven’t been back in awhile but like TripSitterNZ said NBomes are beyond metallic (actually they weren’t really metallic for me, but others have reported it) they are the nastiest bitter and you instantly know you put something other than LSD in your mouth. I also used to dose small amounts (200-250ug with similar nasty taste).

This impure batch was like a mild metallic sensation very similar to others reports of LSD “taste.” I just thought I was immune to the taste but now I believe it may be down to certain impurities after finally experiencing it myself. If I’m not mistaken can’t LSD react with aluminum? This may be the cause of the taste...

I layed my own snuff batches of NBOMes multiple times (not just mixing drug and inert carrier, that would be dangerous), this is not a boast it's just where I got my info.
Had 3 different suppliers, multiple batches over years, never any difference.
Whenever the drip ended up in my mouth I could not taste anything else than the cut...people who tripped with reported the same, and that would mean dozens of people most of them with multiple experiences each.
When making a 1mg/mL nasal solution you could detect a faint taste in the drip if you inhaled too strongly.

AFAIK Blotters are not laid with only 25x NBOMe on them, they put at least one more carrier ingredient so you can absorb it more efficiently, and that ingredient is present in a bigger dose than the active drug.
I am not sure how 2mg of NBOMe could taste like much when slowly coming off a blotter, to the point that it would be a strong taste.

I'm sorry I don't want to come out as arrogant, it's just we are talking about the same compounds and we have different tasting experiences with me reporting no taste and you and TripSitter and many other reports on the net mentioning strong taste.
My money is with the carrier having something to do with it one way or the other.
 
Oh no worries man, no arrogance felt :)

So back then I was laying my own blotter (500ug hits Typically, still got a lifetime supply of shit idk what to do with) of 25b and 25c. In my opinion, the carrier thing was BS, why it became a thing idk, but at least 25b and 25c do not need anything else applied to the blotter to make it effective.

We’d typically eat 250-1000ug depending on person and tolerance. I ate 250ug each time and honestly I would never take more than that, not much headspace but visuals so intense you gotta wave your arm around to find the way like the lights were out.

I also ate 250ug orally with very little if any difference in effects.. I think there was a lot of rumors about these drugs when they first landed.

I can say pretty definitively that even at 100ug you’d be able to taste the NBome. At least the stuff I was taking..


I will admit though that it is strange there was no taste on the drip for you or anyone you knew.. I honestly can’t think of a way to explain that unless maybe due to the tiny amount needed almost all of it gets absorbed before dropping down.

-GC
 
Oh no worries man, no arrogance felt :)

So back then I was laying my own blotter (500ug hits Typically, still got a lifetime supply of shit idk what to do with) of 25b and 25c. In my opinion, the carrier thing was BS, why it became a thing idk, but at least 25b and 25c do not need anything else applied to the blotter to make it effective.

We’d typically eat 250-1000ug depending on person and tolerance. I ate 250ug each time and honestly I would never take more than that, not much headspace but visuals so intense you gotta wave your arm around to find the way like the lights were out.

I also ate 250ug orally with very little if any difference in effects.. I think there was a lot of rumors about these drugs when they first landed.

I can say pretty definitively that even at 100ug you’d be able to taste the NBome. At least the stuff I was taking..


I will admit though that it is strange there was no taste on the drip for you or anyone you knew.. I honestly can’t think of a way to explain that unless maybe due to the tiny amount needed almost all of it gets absorbed before dropping down.

-GC

We were being animals and snorting between 1.0 and 2.5mg lines.
I think what you said about drip being already devoid of active compound makes sense because I remember it felt like the snuff was giving a measurably faster hit when just laid and when the hit would slow I realised that applying gentle heat would immediately restore the speed of come up.
I mean the difference was measurable with dry snuff having the world pulse and melt in 5 min from insufflation and the non dry needing 10 to 20 minutes.
I think it was down to liquid in the granules drawing the NBOMe towards the surface where evaporation was taking place, and with the dry granules gradually absorbing humidity which would drive the drug to be distributed evenly inside the particles.
 
Agreed.

And such differences between the stated and actual dose are, in my opinion, a major reason for why people tend to assume they were being affected by "dirty" LSD - if a blotter is underdosed, the physical aspects of the LSD experience become more pronounced, whereas at higher doses the user tends to be fully engaged with the mental and visual aspects of the trip. Likewise, if there is 100 micrograms of "LSD" present, but a significant amount of those 100 micrograms is iso-LSD, it is going to have a more pronounced bodyload relative to the mental effects; not because the iso-LSD is actively causing the body load, but because there is a relative lack of the psychoactive isomer to keep you engaged with the headspace and the visuals.

The chances of finding a compound that's active at a dose in the low microgram range is already pretty small. The chances that it would be active *only* when combined with psychedelics (and not at all when not on a psychedelic) are even smaller.
If iso-LSD is supposed to be active at less than 40 micrograms when combined with LSD, shouldn't there be *some* level of activity at an insane overdosage of 4000 micrograms? If it were, for example, a 5HT2A antagonist, then one would at the very least expect it to be sedating, for example.
It's not like Hofmann and Shulgin were the only people interested in the activity of LSD's isomers and analogues - while not everyone may have seen the potential of psychedelic therapy, ergoline-based pharmaceuticals did represent a pretty massive commercial market at one point, being used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, migraines/cluster headaches and post-childbirth vaginal bleeding, so many of these compounds were being screened for their pharmacological activity.

This is where I like to apply Occam's Razor, i.e. the principle that one should go with the hypothesis that involves the fewest/smallest assumptions.
iso-LSD being active in the low-microgram range in a way that has not yet been noticed using various in-vitro/in-vivo/human assays is already a pretty big assumption; the reason for this being that it only becomes active in conjunction with a psychedelic is an even bigger assumption.
The placebo effect being a powerful phenomenon, though? I think that's been proven pretty conclusively over and over and over again in medical research. Psychedelics increasing suggestibility, and consequently also the impact of the placebo effect? Also not exactly a major assumption.

People sometimes interpret the idea of falling victim to the placebo effect as a sort of personal insult to their intelligence, which it really isn't. If psychological/pharmacological research has taught us anything, it's that personal reports should always be taken with atleast a grain of salt, even if they're coming from oneself. Researchers have devoted *a lot* of time coming up with things like double-blind studies to minimize the impact of the placebo effect, because they are well-aware they cannot fully trust themselves or their colleagues, no matter how smart or honest they may be.

Obviously, yes. One of the main reasons he worked on what would eventually become PIHKAL was that a compound that was highly active due to a high selectivity for the desired neurological targets would be less likely to have harmful side-effects due to unwanted metabolites, byproducts or activity at undesirable target sites.
However, he would probably also have encouraged people to be skeptical of claims regarding purity that come from their drug dealer, especially if they come associated with vaguely defined marketing terms ("yeah no this is totally 99.998% pure golden needlefluff, dude!") and with bold claims regarded the drug's activity, which might influence the trip via the placebo effect.

Wait, you mean Shulgin is trying to keep the psychedelic activity of these compounds a secret? So other people will not bother synthesizing these compounds, thus not bringing them to the government's attention, and Shulgin can keep them a secret between himself and his friends? That doesn't really sound like Shulgin at all. I mean, why publish TIHKAL/PIHKAL in the first place, then?

If you're referring to DOT/Aleph-1 (although that was in PIHKAL rather than TIHKAL), he did write down in his notebook how it was "the essence of power" and to "tell no one". Except he did tell people after all, dedicating a chapter in PIHKAL to the trip report.

In the chapter detailing the compound's synthesis, he describes the aforementioned trip report as "important in that gives an interesting example of some thought processes associated with psychedelic intoxication, ego-inflation, and what might be thought of as bits of mania." Shulgin was obviously pretty hyped about working on DOT due to it being the first in a family of psychedelic compounds switching out an oxygen atom with a sulphur atom, and he when talks about the stimulation he felt during his first trial of the substance at a dose of 250 nanograms (with a normal dose later being determined to be 5-10mg, i.e. 5-10 *million* nanograms), he specifically states that any activity he might have felt at such a low dose was "certainly all placebo response".

So let that sink in for a while: Even someone as smart and well-versed in the world of psychedelics as Alexander Shulgin fully accepted that he could be rendered susceptible to ego-inflation and mania during a psychedelic experience, and that he certainly wasn't above being affected by the placebo effect.

Very late response to this, I agree entirely with everything you have said. In fact, looking back on my post I would entirely discard it in favor for a response like this. Your explanation of MDMA synthesis has also completely changed my thoughts on the topic. Clearly I need to scrub up on chemistry.

With regards to Shulgin and reporting/secret activity. To rephrase, that since the typical Shulgin report is more biological based than someone reporting what went on during the trip e.g. went to mall etc (although the lab notes become more like this with some humorous reports). 5-MEO-DALT is one example of a slightly unreported chemical, but when it became available in the RC scene there were reports of more potential. All the Tihkal reports are oral, vaping it is a different story. I was surprised that being a 5-meo-x that Shulgin did not report smoking or vaping it. I could be incorrect, it might be in other notes, but not Tihkal. It could also be an incorrect assumption of mine chemistry wise to assume that all 5-meo's are successful vaped.

How I wish I had some "dirty" acid now to compare. All acid I buy nowadays is sold as of a high purity and "refined".
 
Nichols talks about the effects being different, as various alterations are made to the diethlyamide group. This may explain the different flavours people report:

“Why is it that the N,N-diethylamide of LSD is unique? What is it about this function that confers on LSD its particular properties? We have seen that even the most minor modifications of the diethylamide lead to dramatic loss of potency. Even in those cases, we only know that the doses became larger; there is no evidence that if you increase the dosage that the ultimate effect will be the same as that produced by LSD. We would, in fact, predict that the effects should be different because all of the different receptor affinities of a given lysergamide molecule will not shift in unison and to the same degree when we change the structure of the amide group.”

So LSD is LSD, as they say, but considering the myriad ways one can alter processes/outcomes, it is very likely that what is on a given sheet can be different depending on production methods and starting material (ergoline vs ergotamine tartrate, etc.).

Hmm, I’m still open to there being different angles of LSD, yielding slightly different effects, irrespective of the placebo and “every trip is unique” facts.
 
Whether you make your LSD via the azide or the acyl chloride or using some fancy pyBOP coupling agent doesn't „modify" the diethylamide group.

And once you "modify" - i.e. "replace" the diethylamide on LSD, it is no longer LSD. Replace it with monoethylamide, and it is LAE-32. With dimethylamide, it becomes DAM-57. Diallylamide, and you've got DAL, and so on.

But all of these are dramatically less potent than LSD, so no LSD chemist would waste expensive precursors on them; nor could they occur as byproducts in an LSD synthesis.

The one byproduct that *could* occur in significant concentrations is the previously mentioned iso-LSD, where the diethylamide group is pointing in the wrong direction.

However, said iso-LSD is accepted to be inactive by the scientific community, producing no effects in humans even at doses of several milligrams.

I would actually say that Nichols' statement goes *against* the theory that impurities in LSD are having a significant effect. He's not saying that the diethylamide moiety is what makes LSD give you "good" trips - he's saying that the diethylamide moiety is why just 100 micrograms of LSD let you trip *at all*, because even slightly altering the length of the chains greatly affects its potency, and pointing the amide group in the wrong direction renders it inactive.
 
So, @Hodor, any variation is all in the mind then. Thanks for clearing that up!
I still wonder why some sheets have felt different to others, but remained consistently different across the sheet, and among unconnected users.
When I kept getting similar comments/questions about one particular batch, it made me question this topic.
Is it possible that some other lysergamides have been passed around before they were on the RC scene?
 
So, @Hodor, any variation is all in the mind then. Thanks for clearing that up!
I still wonder why some sheets have felt different to others, but remained consistently different across the sheet, and among unconnected users.
When I kept getting similar comments/questions about one particular batch, it made me question this topic.
Is it possible that some other lysergamides have been passed around before they were on the RC scene?

Just because we don't know what it is that is doing it, doesn't mean it's not happening.
You are not the only person reporting different people reporting the same effects from the same sheet without any heads up or comments being exchanged before.
And then the same people reporting different effects from another sheet, with everyone tripping on their own every time so no set or setting being shared.

The different dosage hypothesis doesn't make sense to me as low doses of a batch that felt clean never gave me any body load, and when a batch is not good, taking more does not result in the bodyload going away.
 
Probably a dumb question answered earlier on the thread (I did read most of it .. and sorry if it was) .. but given the super low dose range in which LSD is active and assuming LSD is the target, are there actually many analogues / by products that would also be active in that range?

Of course .. you can get a lot on a blotter .. but that's not what I'm asking.
 
Probably a dumb question answered earlier on the thread (I did read most of it .. and sorry if it was) .. but given the super low dose range in which LSD is active and assuming LSD is the target, are there actually many analogues / by products that would also be active in that range?

Of course .. you can get a lot on a blotter .. but that's not what I'm asking.

Several analogues have similar dosages, yes.
LSB, LSZ, AL LAD, 1p LSD.... Probably a few more too.
 
LSB, LSZ, AL LAD, 1p LSD.... Probably a few more too.
Also the lesser known 1cP-LSD, ETH LAD (still in production, unlike the currently already seemingly much missed AL LAD), and I believe the newer, what' it called again- Eipla? Not sure that is right but I see doses at 200ug.
 
I used to trip all the time in the 70s. For nostalgia's sake, half moon blotter was the most common. I had a good connection and would get full sheets of Window Pane. You would cut up the squares; it was in a hard gelatin form (purple). Would would let it melt in your mouth...great trips. On Sat nights a bunch of us would go see the laser show at the Planetarium in NYC then get cases of beer and hang out by a small lake in Central Park. We were all nuts and walked through the park in the middle of the night scarring away the muggers and weirdos.

What I loved back then was called Mescalin. It wasnt true Mescalin and could never quite find out what it was. You would buy it in a tiny pill...sometimes you could get what was called "double barrel" which was supposed to be a double dose. You sorta tripped on it but not quite like lsd...was like walking on a cloud. Anyone know what that was?
A dose of mescaline won't fit in a tiny pill.might have been Dom or mdma.
 
Hey BlueLight,

I received a new batch of LSD and for some reason this LSD feels "heavier". I don't know how much of this is just in my head, however. I tested my previous batch and my current batch with Ehrlich's, so I know it is LSD.

I'm wondering if the purity of the LSD that's used affects the high. Let's assume I have 100mcg 95% purity LSD on a blotter, and 112mcg of 85% purity LSD on another blotter. Will these have the same effects or will one feel more "cleaner" than the other? I hope I don't sound ignorant.

I also have what was claimed and looks to be rather clean MDMA crystals, the crystals are white and translucent (I've tested it), so assuming it is of higher purity my LSD question may also apply to this.

Thank you.
I don't think with lsds tiny microgram dose range impurities will make a difference.its far too insignificant.
 
I’ve often wondered if the starting material, ergot, affects the outcome. There are at least two species of claviceps one can use. Could one be different in effects that the other, even minutely? I know other fungi that certainly display subtle diffs, mutations excluded. I don’t want to perpetuate the dirty acid myth, but variations can occur. Anyone know the diff between the two main claviceps and how, or not, that could contribute to a slightly altered synth. Even gold has variety: green, red, white, yellow. It’s all still gold, but with a touch if something else. 100% purity is the myth. How would you synth something like lsd at 100% ever?
I do remember the late 80s, early 90s having some really clean, or weak, stuff going around. When I was moving paper, it was made clear to me there were two “types” and one was much easier for beginners. I tried the weak stuff, and eventually ate a 10 strip, got really high, but had nearly no visuals. This was confirmed by other reports back to me, usually by those wanting a stronger, more visual trip. Could have been MiPLA? But again, someone with knowledge could hopefully comment on the variation in synth when comparing the two known (what about the unknown) fungi and the resulting subjective effects, if any.
Nope starting material is just that a starting point.taking into consideration how long a batch takes, the equipment cost, the skill level required,the fact that making and acquiring all one needs to do this is not a small or easy task means dedication to the molecule is right up there.theres no way that there's low skill only in it for the money
'cooks' who will put dirty product out there like with meth.if your going to all the trouble of getting there your gunna give it your best shot.
 
I’ve often wondered if the starting material, ergot, affects the outcome. There are at least two species of claviceps one can use. Could one be different in effects that the other, even minutely? I know other fungi that certainly display subtle diffs, mutations excluded. I don’t want to perpetuate the dirty acid myth, but variations can occur. Anyone know the diff between the two main claviceps and how, or not, that could contribute to a slightly altered synth. Even gold has variety: green, red, white, yellow. It’s all still gold, but with a touch if something else. 100% purity is the myth. How would you synth something like lsd at 100% ever?
I do remember the late 80s, early 90s having some really clean, or weak, stuff going around. When I was moving paper, it was made clear to me there were two “types” and one was much easier for beginners. I tried the weak stuff, and eventually ate a 10 strip, got really high, but had nearly no visuals. This was confirmed by other reports back to me, usually by those wanting a stronger, more visual trip. Could have been MiPLA? But again, someone with knowledge could hopefully comment on the variation in synth when comparing the two known (what about the unknown) fungi and the resulting subjective effects, if any.
When I was doing acid all the time there was one batch that was different.
Doing one blotter was weak and didn't last long but doing two would last a day or two.it was definitely in the acid family and was just slightly different, effects wise not enough for the average person to tell but when you're a real connisuer like me you notice the slight differences.dosage wise it was a bit different too I think the whole one not enough but two is heaps thing might be dosage related.milder and longer lasting I think it was.lots of coke,4mar was also consumed over the course of 48 hrs or so.and there was a drive to nimbin in the middle of the trip (something that I wouldn't have done if it was LSD I think) i think it was ald52.
No nbome or LSP,lsz around at that time which leaves ald52.coke compliments the LSD family nicely much like pot.heroin doesn't really jive with the tryptamines and methyl aminorex was being consumed daily
so it was just there.
 
Last edited:
Also the lesser known 1cP-LSD, ETH LAD (still in production, unlike the currently already seemingly much missed AL LAD), and I believe the newer, what' it called again- Eipla? Not sure that is right but I see doses at 200ug.

Actually I don't think ETH is still in production, just that it never sold as well as AL-LAD so there's more left. I could be wrong but I know the people that brought them both to us stated they would stop making all R6 subs.

But yeah, EiPLA, and MiPLA too. There is also LSM-775, but that is less potent, requiring like 500-1000ug. Apparently it's very sedating, like LSA seeds, and causes a lot of nausea for people. Also, LSZ. There are more possible too, but those are the ones I'm aware of ever being released for the public.
 
I'm aware of ever being released
Wondering about what we all don’t know about . . . It is highly improbable, but not impossible, that someone pushed out an unexplored analog or sub.
Again, perhaps these effect diffs are also, possibly due to entirely different, albeit closely related compounds; ones that the chemist(s) don’t feel like labelling or explaining.

My connection in the 80s-90s would not have bothered telling me “this is ald-52 - it’s quit like lsd, but blah blah.” He would just lay the paperwork on me. And i was in it for sheets. Could this be a potential scenario, even from a clandestine lab? I think it well might be.

Would a dedicated, self-taught type (like NS) declare their new lsd-like compound, or just push it out?
I mean when I drop ETH-LAD, I say “I took some acid.”
Unless you’re really into lysergamides, you generally don’t care about the subtle differences and this assumption would likely have kept the makers quiet.
No need to create a buzz about a new hallucinogen during the war on drugs.

So the times we got different stuff, could have been different stuff.
And just because it was published on a certain date doesn’t mean a well-funded and set up group couldn’t have beat the Japanese to ETH-LAD, for a poor example.

Dunno, but I love this discussion. Thanks, folks!
 
I suppose the testing from seizures would have revealed these subs/analogs as they were captured, so maybe that is something to consider.
Or did that testing sophistication vary?
 
I doubt it, LSD is being made in huge quantities right now, real LSD is way cheaper than an analogue. many analogues have to be LSD as an intermediate step. They stopped syntthing AL-LAD and ETH-LAD because the yields are much lower than LSD and it wasn't commercial viable to keep doing. Even the 1p/1a/1cP/1b-LSD analogues are pricier than LSD.
 
Top