• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

Is LSD-25 even a classical psychedelic?

Are you referring to the effects, the chemical structure, how it was discovered, etc? I'm not really sure what you're asking here...
 
It is to me. There're different types of psychedelics, lysergamides are different from tryptamines but I think most of them would put you in a "profound" psychedelic headspace.
How about substituted phenethylamines? They are very different structurally, but some of them feel pretty similar to LSD (though it also depends on the dose).
 
Last edited:
I would argue N,N Dmt is THE classical psychedlelic but ofc that's just my opinion. Lysergamides just seem to be quite different structurally and also pharmacodynamically. Idk maybe I just respond differntly than most so that biases my opnion
 
Like MDMA, I have found post late 199whatever LSD-025 to be significantly weaker than before. Would like to try much higher doses.
 
Rectify said:
Like MDMA, I have found post late 199whatever LSD-025 to be significantly weaker than before. Would like to try much higher doses.
[/QUOTE
70-100 ug seems to be the standard today. Interesting to note that the 60s generation would have been taking 3-4x the dose someone today takes for their fist time. Certainly could change the culture around the drug
Click to expand...
 
alasdairm,

Highest Strength Family Acid
O.25" × 0.25"
4 blotters
300 micrograms per blotter

That was on a Saturday night. Jerry Garcia died the next Wednesday.
 
Bagseed said:
well the term "classical psychedelic" is a completely cultural invention with no scientific backing. pretty useless in my opinion.
Click to expand...
agreed. i guess that's kinda why i asked it. should our definitions be based on subjective effects, structure, or pharmacology? idk if there's a clear answer
 
thegreenhand said:
agreed. i guess that's kinda why i asked it. should our definitions be based on subjective effects, structure, or pharmacology? idk if there's a clear answer
Click to expand...
well thinking it over, calling the term "useless" is not quite right. I guess it depends on the context in which one is talking about these drugs. from a pharmacology / chemistry viewpoint, it really doesn't make sense to use it, but since culture and the "hive mind" is very much at work shaping the psychedelic experiences people have, it makes sense to differentiate between psychedelics which have an appreciable history of consumption (decades with LSD, much much longer with plant and fungi based psychedelics) when talking about it from a sociology point of view.
 
When I think of the term “classic psychedelic” 4 psychedelic drugs come to mind...

-Psilocybin
-LSD
-Mescaline
-DMT

IMO if you have these you don’t really need much else.

-GC
 
G_Chem said:
When I think of the term “classic psychedelic” 4 psychedelic drugs come to mind...

-Psilocybin
-LSD
-Mescaline
-DMT

IMO if you have these you don’t really need much else.

-GC
Click to expand...
I can agree with this for sure. I really do have to get my hands on mescaline one of these days

I suppose it makes sense that the most popular one in culture are considered “classical”. I started the thread almost entirely with the structure in mind - hence posting in N&PD - but perhaps I chose poorly haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top