🌟🌟 Social 🌟🌟 PD Social Thread 2022-2026 v. Year of the Phenethylamine

[Camomill]

They're moreso cardiotoxic than neurotoxic if I recall correctly? May be wrong, but if you don't abuse the fuck out of them you'll be fine. 5-MeO-DiPT is the one that I've got the most experience with, it's quite a fascinating and unique substance, the current iteration that people say is similar is 5-MeO-MiPT. I have often referred to 5-MeO-DiPT in posts on here as "foxy", short for its old nickname "foxy methoxy" back in the days of when it was sold as a sex enhancer in smoke shops. Foxy is a non-visual, profoundly tactile, extremely emotion/sex/nostalgia/sociality enhancing compound with an extremely unique profile of effects, and a variety of RoAs (routes of administration). I had a box mod tank full of it once, that shit was spellbinding.

I'm not sure what else you have access to, so I'll assume it's the four common ones on the market right now. I also tend to refer to these by their common names, miprocin (4-HO-MiPT), ethocin (4-HO-DET), psilacetin (4-AcO-DMT) and metocin (4-HO-MET). Ethocin is a severe letdown, it only seems to get positive reviews from teenagers who've never tried other drugs, or people who've only microdosed mushrooms. I have had a tough time getting ethocin to shine without a monstrous dose as well as other psychedelics in the mix. Metocin I also found to be quite shallow, lacking in introspective qualities and providing a lot of eyecandy, but somehow making even something as shallow as 2C-B seem profound. Both ethocin and metocin I've pushed over 80mg orally on no tolerance just to see if I had a weak batch, and while the visuals and tactile effects enhance, somehow these are bimbos of chemical compounds, eliciting nothing useful on the cognitive front.

On the other hand, miprocin and psilacetin are two of the most unique and profound drugs I've ever come upon. There's much bickering about whether or not psilacetin just becomes psilocin once metabolized, the current consensus on it seems to be that there is an initial period before the acetoxy moiety gets lysed off where it does seem to have a different binding profile than psilocin does, and even in self-blinded tests I've run, psilacetin still comes on quicker, elicits a more visual experience, and is more prone to a clear-headed cognitive state as opposed to psilocin's/mushrooms' hazier headspace. Mushrooms/DMT/psilocin/ayahuasca/cannabis/DOB/dissociatives all have a similar haziness to me, but psilacetin, miprocin, LSD, DOM, DOC, 2C-B, allylescaline, mescaline, DiPT, DPT, and a good handful of others are much more clearheaded and generally useful for a less experienced user of psychedelics. The hazy ones can be harder to parse meaning from, the integration especially can be trickier and after all, the point of a psychedelic isn't the trip, it's the experiential integration afterwards.

Miprocin is supremely visual, euphoric, unique in this way that causes the corporeal to feel as if it somehow shimmers in a way that can be physically felt. It's one of my fiance's favorite drugs, and despite having more eyecandy and euphoria than metocin or ethocin does, it's also significantly more profound and can lead to growth and healing to a significantly higher degree in my opinion. I'd need to dig through notes to get the actual number but there's no way I've administered these drugs to fewer than 25 people in total, including myself more times than I've kept count of. I've also insufflated and vaporized all four of these, and while nothing is to be gained from vaporizing them, insufflation can cut an hour or two off the total trip duration and make the comeup damn near immediate, though it can also induce immediate vomiting if you're prone to tryptamine nausea.

A side note on the topic of psychedelic nausea, but psychedelic nausea seems to fade after maybe a thousand or more administrations. I dailied ayahuasca for 8 months, and have used psychedelics probably thousands of total times at this point, and it's to the point where even without the presence of cannabis I'll get "psychedelic munchies" now which is quite interesting.

And welcome to Bluelight! If you have any questions about psychedelics don't hesitate to ask away.

Okay well this was very enlightening to read.

I have many experiences with regular shrooms up to pretty high doses, so i would call myself experienced whatever that means to someone.

Well, I checked again and noticed that 4-aco-dmt is not available at the place i am checking out, but rather 4-Aco-MET, which is something else, mostly seems to be a prodrug for 4-ho-MET it seems, so i will most likely get a bunch of miprocin it seems

Thanks for the kind answer and best wishes going out!

 

[azurelimousine]

Okay well this was very enlightening to read.

I have many experiences with regular shrooms up to pretty high doses, so i would call myself experienced whatever that means to someone.

Well, I checked again and noticed that 4-aco-dmt is not available at the place i am checking out, but rather 4-Aco-MET, which is something else, mostly seems to be a prodrug for 4-ho-MET it seems, so i will most likely get a bunch of miprocin it seems

Thanks for the kind answer and best wishes going out!

having tried both 4-aco and 4-ho-MET, I dont recall the difference between the two being very marked. Fantastic stuff though, a very nice buzz with less demanding introspective-spiritual inclinations compared to the same 4-substitutions to DMT. I haven't taken large doses (like 60-80+mg) like I have with mushrooms and 4-aco-dmt, i dont know what would happen there. But at like 40mg they are great.

 

[Esperighanto]

having tried both 4-aco and 4-ho-MET, I dont recall the difference between the two being very marked. Fantastic stuff though, a very nice buzz with less demanding introspective-spiritual inclinations compared to the same 4-substitutions to DMT. I haven't taken large doses (like 60-80+mg) like I have with mushrooms and 4-aco-dmt, i dont know what would happen there. But at like 40mg they are great.

I suspect that whatever differences may actually exist between the 4-Acetoxy and 4-Hydroxy variants of any given tryptamine are probably minute at best, they appear slightly noticeable but not as noticeable as say, Panaeolus cyanescens vs Psilocybe cubensis.

On an unrelated note, I've got a gram of 5F-ADB (MDMB-5F-PINACA) to compound, I'm figuring out how to divy it up between blotter, vape juice and infused plant matter today. I processed the last gram of MDMB-4en-PINACA jut fine, but I made the vape juice for it so weak that it's almost a hassle to even use, at 75 micrograms per mL. Also working on figuring out some ways to compound the less common constituents of caffeine containing plants (especially yerba mate) into caffeine pills, to try to increase the desireability of effects. Has anyone here ever worked with either 5F-ADB, or making their own caffeine pills? Assuming I can figure out a good mix for the caffeine, I may press it into tablets and market it as caffeine and the other constituents of caffeine containing plants are fully uncontrolled where I live.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

Assuming I can figure out a good mix for the caffeine, I may press it into tablets and market it as caffeine and the other constituents of caffeine containing plants are fully uncontrolled where I live.

I haven’t tried much caffeine in any forms outside of tea and coffee, as the energy drinks that are sold are extremely uncomfortable to me. What is yerba mate like in comparison?

I most appreciate the bowel movement inducing effects of coffee. The rest just feels like anxiety and jitters lol. On occasion good for getting some work done but makes me short of temper.

 

[Camomill]

And welcome to Bluelight! If you have any questions about psychedelics don't hesitate to ask away.

1 question i'm quite curious about:

Would you say, has the effects of mushrooms changed since you have taken pure tryptamines in their isolated form?
I would guess it couldn't make too big of a difference(?)

 

[Esperighanto]

Would you say, has the effects of mushrooms changed since you have taken pure tryptamines in their isolated form?

As in, does the use of synthetic tryptamines cause you to later feel mushrooms different?

I would say no, but mushrooms themselves have a slightly uh, "handdrawn", "very human" sort of feeling which may be all placebo but may be a result of yet-to-be-understood impacts of other alkaloids found in psilocybin containing fungi.

I haven’t tried much caffeine in any forms outside of tea and coffee, as the energy drinks that are sold are extremely uncomfortable to me. What is yerba mate like in comparison?

It cuts through tolerance, has a much higher degree of euphoria, and lasts longer. I've found a combination of L-theanine, theobromine, caffeine and methylliberine gets close, but I want to try adding in kaempferol too, and to develop weaker ones that include theacrine.

 

[Camomill]

As in, does the use of synthetic tryptamines cause you to later feel mushrooms different?

I would say no, but mushrooms themselves have a slightly uh, "handdrawn", "very human" sort of feeling which may be all placebo but may be a result of yet-to-be-understood impacts of other alkaloids found in psilocybin containing fungi.

okay, yeah no you perfefctly understood what i meant with the question.

And I'd agree, comparing with other psychedelics i can't quite tap the finger on how shrooms feel, even though i do know them quite well.

Synthetic PEA's or Lysergamides in general feel quite defined and 'concrete' to me, which would maybe make sense considering it is not a mixture of different substances.


I am also asking because I do feel some synthetic cannabinoids (don't know which as it was labeled as weed) can change up how normal ganja works, at least temporarily to me.

 

[Esperighanto]

okay, yeah no you perfefctly understood what i meant with the question.

And I'd agree, comparing with other psychedelics i can't quite tap the finger on how shrooms feel, even though i do know them quite well.

Synthetic PEA's or Lysergamides in general feel quite defined and 'concrete' to me, which would maybe make sense considering it is not a mixture of different substances.


I am also asking because I do feel some synthetic cannabinoids (don't know which as it was labeled as weed) can change up how normal ganja works, at least temporarily to me.

Yeah spice is just super effective at inducing wildly potent and long lasting tolerance to certain effects but not all, it's quite a unique thing in that way.

 

[unodelacosa]

Ireland. It’s like a fuckin’ fairy tale of a place.

It really is. Visiting there is a lot of fun. But since when did ordering a sandwich with "salad" = lettuce and tomato on the sandwich? That's not a salad…

The culture is so different from my home in so many ways, and such good ways.

They say comparison is the thief of joy. It is helpful though that they speak English.

I don’t know if we can afford to move abroad (or find employment/get citizenship anyhow)

A work visa would be a start, but there are expatriate scenes in various cities across the globe. Berlin has a good one; even without citizenship you just have to leave the country every 6 mo. for 2 wks, so: two nice vacations each year. Mumbai, India has an expat scene, too, but it's a bit different. There's an excellent novel called Shantaram, based on a true story of a man who escaped a max security prison in Australia and hid out in Mumbai. Canada, Germany, Australia, Mexico – all big expatriate destinations.

but I’m hoping to travel a lot more in the U.S. soon and see if maybe another state would suffice.

There are at least 8 geopolitical regions in the U.S.: the far west, Rocky Mountains, Planes, Great Lakes, Southwest, Southeast, Mid-Atlantic, and New England.

I just cannot go back to living in my home state. It has become toxic. Those who can afford it buy large chunks of land and isolate themselves and the rest of us just live in the fallout. There is no such thing as society.

Where is this? Where do you think you could live?

I had a debate about this on here with someone within the last year (forget who) who doubted this,

I believe that was yours truly. I still hold that position. There's a double-blind study from 2021 and a follow up in 2023 that show how only the variable group (particularly those given 13 µg or 25 µg) reported feeling something, yet both groups saw a minor improvement in cognitive skills. The implication there is that while, yes, the group given an active dose seemed physiologically aware of it, the fact that both groups demonstrated a slight boost in cognition and mood is likely because everyone was paying attention to both measures and were expecting this change. They call the phenomenon "unblinding". It's pretty fascinating really.

And hey, if it works for you, that's great. Not opposed to it if it helps people. I want to believe in microdosing, and I tried it back before it was on-trend and before it was a buzzword, like c. 1998. Never felt anything significant, no real mood boost or cognitive enhancement. And besides, I like taking a proper dose.

I've dosed 10µg 1p-LSD many times and can definitely feel the effect.

Without a double-blind study, you can't really rule out placebo, though.

I could test the first possibility with self-blinded trials,

Except, no, self-blinded trials still hold too much bias, and this doesn't solve the unblinding issue. Plus you want it to be the case that microdosing is a real, non-placebo phenomenon, and you'll be looking for evidence to support this. So that's a bias plus confirmation bias among supporters and practitioners of microdosing. That's the outcome you're looking for, so if you want something closer to objectivity you should not rely on self-testing.

Remember: correlation does imply causation.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

Where is this? Where do you think you could live?

I live in the rural southeast I guess based on those regions you listed.

I have no idea where would be better. I have rose tinted glasses for NW Arkansas from my time in college but that was long ago and we have been priced out of the area long ago.

 

[iom]

Without a double-blind study, you can't really rule out placebo, though.

Tell that to Shulgin! Seriously, his scale defines +/- as "maybe a placebo" and +1 as "definitely not a placebo---where the approximate time-course of the substance becomes clear". That's it!

Personally I've experimented with "mini doses" of a variety of substances and I've found that if I look the drug up in PIHKAL/TIHKAL and take the lower number of the dose range he gives, about 1/6 of that tends to be a "minimum needed for +1" dose for myself. For LSD, that would be 60 ug, which for most people should be enough for some mild visuals. I haven't been able to work with precisely measured LSD, but I suspect 10 ug would be right at that minimum threshold.

I would not call that a microdose by the way. I think microdose is usually defined as a dose that's too small to feel but nevertheless yields health benefits. I'm skeptical of that notion, and for me, a "1/6 of minimum Shulgin dose" is still active enough that I wouldn't necessarily want to be having a normal day doing normal things. Though for the most part I can be functional on it. Last summer, I tried a very old sugar cube, and I think it might have had around 10 ug left in it. It provided a very nice energizing and euphoric boost with more cognitive clarity than mini doses from most things.

I also need to point out that when dealing with LSD and/or its pro drugs especially, it's very hard to know what dose you are getting without having chain-of-custody back to whoever diluted it in the first place, and in the vast majority of cases I believe actual doses are lower than those represented. For example, people often assume "100 ug per hit" of acid, but the vast majority of acid appears to be closer to 50 ug per hit or else "really strong" and upwards 150-200 ug per hit. I doubt very much 100 ug per hit acid exists at all.

 

[xdrc]

Tell that to Shulgin! Seriously, his scale defines +/- as "maybe a placebo" and +1 as "definitely not a placebo---where the approximate time-course of the substance becomes clear".

And yet it kind of works out, doesn't it?

 

[iom]

My guess is that the primary consequence of -Aco versus -OH at the 4-position of the tryptamine is to alter the pharmacokinetics, which I believe could manifest as qualitative differences in addition to the altered time course for a number of reasons.

 

[perpetualdawn]

And hey, if it works for you, that's great. Not opposed to it if it helps people. I want to believe in microdosing, and I tried it back before it was on-trend and before it was a buzzword, like c. 1998. Never felt anything significant, no real mood boost or cognitive enhancement. And besides, I like taking a proper dose.

My position is that 10µg is _not_ a microdose because it's perceptible

Except, no, self-blinded trials still hold too much bias, and this doesn't solve the unblinding issue. Plus you want it to be the case that microdosing is a real, non-placebo phenomenon, and you'll be looking for evidence to support this. So that's a bias plus confirmation bias among supporters and practitioners of microdosing. That's the outcome you're looking for, so if you want something closer to objectivity you should not rely on self-testing.

My protocol is that I would premake liquid doses, half of them would be pure water, half would have 10µg LSD mixed in. They would be labelled as such. But then you cover each label with a unique ID and make sure the LSD/placebo label isn't visible underneath.

Once a week or whatever you randomly pick one of the doses, and record the unique ID in your log, along with whether you think it was LSD or placebo. At the end of the trial you peel the ID labels off and match the IDs to the placebo/LSD to see what the results were without bias.

 

[unodelacosa]

Tell that to Shulgin!

He died 12 years ago. Even if you were speaking figuratively, please don't think that I'm not thoroughly familiar with the late Sasha Shulgin's writings, lectures and notes. I've thoroughly read, recommended and quoted PIHKAL, TIHKAL, The Shulgin Index and his published notebooks for years, even in this very forum. Copies of those tomes are on a bookshelf in my office with me right now. I know exactly how he felt about placebo. The power of placebo is what drew him to pharmacology in the first place after he was an accomplished chemist.

Personally I've experimented with "mini doses" of a variety of substances and I've found that if I look the drug up in PIHKAL/TIHKAL and take the lower number of the dose range he gives, about 1/6 of that tends to be a "minimum needed for +1" dose for myself.

"For [your]self" ← does this mean you think you're especially / uncommonly sensitive? And wouldn't 1/6 of 60 µg be 10 µg? Unclear what your point is here. If you're so unusually sensitive, wouldn't that make you a less reliable indicator of drug potencies? Perhaps try asking a few pharmacologists what they think

For LSD, that would be 60 ug, which for most people should be enough for some mild visuals.

Agreed, 60 µg should produce mild perceptual shifts in vision for most ppl, but 10µg probably will not, in my best conjecture / opinion. "Visuals" is maybe a bit of a stretch for 60 µg, but I'll allow it.

I haven't been able to work with precisely measured LSD, but I suspect 10 ug would be right at that minimum threshold.

So this statement really weakens your argument and I suspect you're letting your own conjecture get the best of you here. Hardly matters because the point of it is to effect mood boost and cognitive enhancement, not just feel something. It doesn't boost cognition and mood unless you truly believe that it will and you psych yourself into it, which due to placebo + focused attention it indeed produces a minimal change. The user was capable of this without taking any drugs in the first place, though, as was the case when patients were given the placebo of 0.0 µg.

I would not call that a microdose by the way. I think microdose is usually defined as a dose that's too small to feel but nevertheless yields health benefits.

That definition is misleading and a bit loaded. I think Wikipedia has a better definition with four solid sources to back it up (emphasis mine):

"Psychedelic microdosing is a form of drug microdosing in which sub-hallucinogenic doses of serotonergic psychedelics like LSD and psilocybin are taken for claimed cognitive and emotional benefits."

I'm skeptical of that notion

You should be skeptical of microdosing's efficacy as a therapeutic agent perhaps.

and for me, a "1/6 of minimum Shulgin dose" is still active enough that I wouldn't necessarily want to be having a normal day doing normal things.

Yeah right, so let's test this theory. I just looked up 5-MeO-MiPT in TIHKAL. It appears 1.5 mg is the lowest tested entry that has the minimalist effect noted under qualitative effects. Ok, then 1.5 mg divided by 6 gives us 0.25 mg. You're telling me that you can take 250 µg of 5-MeO-MiPT (Moxy) and trip hard enough to affect your entire day? If this is true, that means you might be one of the rare slow-metabolizers of serotonergic drugs. This would likely disqualify you from phase 1 and phase 2 testing for new medicines.

Though for the most part I can be functional on it.

You should try a standard dose or a dose to where you are dysfunctional once in a while on a weekend or something responsible. It's fun and music sounds sooooo good…

Last summer, I tried a very old sugar cube, and I think it might have had around 10 ug left in it.

Let's not be too scientific, now. Who cares about precision? Just hazard an arbitrary guess but state it with confidence. Something like: "I dropped a tab of acid in the urinal three summers ago, but then after a light misting with some bleach microdiluted with water and drying it off in the sun, I microdosed it and am certain it was 10.0 µg. Needless to say, the experience was intenseAF and the mood boost and cognitive expansion gushed out of me with such frenzy that I didn't notice the crapitalist attempt at exploitation taking place, riding the microdose hype and lying through their teeth… "

Lol, ok I'm exaggerating, but I'm using it for effect.

I also need to point out that when dealing with LSD and/or its pro drugs especially,

Pause. LSD prodrugs appear to have similar safety profiles, and note also that not every lysergamide is an LSD prodrug. ETH-LAD, AL-LAD, and PRO-LAD come to mind. It's also unclear the extent to which 1-substituted LSD analogues are psychoactive on their own, but the initial data looks like they're probably active. In my best conjecture, an LSD analogue is most likely being prepared by skilled chemists in a properly prepared, capable laboratory, as it's somewhat considered to be the Holy Grail of clandestine chemistry. Many times this lab has been in China. A modern lab will have access to auto-electric pipettes capable of dialing in and delivering a very precise dose, down to the microliter. Hell, anyone can buy a decent handheld one for a few hundred bucks. So if anything, I would guess the lysergamide analogues would display less margin of error than most clandestine L.

it's very hard to know what dose you are getting without having chain-of-custody back to whoever diluted it in the first place, and in the vast majority of cases I believe actual doses are lower than those represented.

Not according to the DNM Avengers, the DEA and EU-equivalent agencies, Interpol, and testing non-profit organizations like DanceSafe and their ilk, according to the more recent reports I've seen. Also gel tabs and pressed tablets have been on the rise and offer better preservation capabilities. Until pharmacogenomics makes some significant advancements, it will always be a little bit of a crapshoot though

For example, people often assume "100 ug per hit" of acid, but the vast majority of acid appears to be closer to 50 ug per hit or else "really strong" and upwards 150-200 ug per hit.

Is this from studies? What sources? Or are you claiming to be able to tell personally?

I doubt very much 100 ug per hit acid exists at all.

I guarantee you it does. There is data to confirm this if you search for it from reputable sources. The analytics are not untenable and they speak for themselves.

I apologize if it seems like I'm being frustratingly contrarian or something like that. I don't mean to sound combative and it's fairly confusing, to this day, to consider how potent LSD is despite its renowned delicate chemical structure. Anyway, this is with all due respect and being said to elevate people's understanding only. One love.

 

[unodelacosa]

My guess is that the primary consequence of -Aco versus -OH at the 4-position of the tryptamine is to alter the pharmacokinetics, which I believe could manifest as qualitative differences in addition to the altered time course for a number of reasons.

Yeah I agree with you. For example, the primary differences between psilacetin and psilocin, or metacetin and metocin, are very likely pharmacokinetics.

It's worth noting: it's not yet certain whether 4-AcO-xxT is active on its own. It remains an open question. And of course perhaps its wiser comparing 4-AcO-xxT to the phosphate ester 4-PO-xxT, so like psilacetin vs psilocybin. The phosphate is not very lipid soluble and likely has a very hard time crossing the BBB, whereas the acetate is more lipophilic and likely crosses the BBB before a full conversion to 4-OH is achieved.

Also they were created to avoid the red tape that comes with attempting to study a schedule I drug.

 

[unodelacosa]

but rather 4-Aco-MET, which is something else, mostly seems to be a prodrug for 4-ho-MET it seems, so i will most likely get a bunch of miprocin it seems

*metacetin, I believe that's called. Miprocin would indicate 4-HO-MiPT (and then Mipracetin indicates 4-AcO-MiPT).

And then, you know, it follows the pattern of: methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, pentyl, hexyl, hectyl, octyl, nonyl, and decyl in every permutation, plus there are single-pronged versions like baeocystin and NMT, and also there are phosphate esters and acetate esters.

 

[iom]

He died 12 years ago.

Of course I'm being figurative here, and I also know of his fascination with placebos, notwithstanding the fact that his rating scale explicitly implies (barring exceptional circumstances) an ability to discern a particular dose to be "not a placebo" (i.e. a +1 or higher).

"For [your]self" ← does this mean you think you're especially / uncommonly sensitive?

No. Did I say that? Why have you implied that?

Agreed, 60 µg should produce mild perceptual shifts in vision for most ppl, but 10µg probably will not, in my best conjecture / opinion. "Visuals" is maybe a bit of a stretch for 60 µg, but I'll allow it.

Visuals on 60 ug is not a stretch at all, but not everyone will have them. For many people, 60 ug is enough for a +3. I believe this is roughly the convention Shulgin uses when specifying dose ranges for compounds in PIHKAL and TIHKAL. In TIHKAL for example, the dose range specified for LSD is 60-200 ug because this is the range of doses within which people typically have +3 experiences. For me personally, the low end of that range is very often the threshold at which I experience +3 level effects.

Extrapolating from my experience with other psychedelics and from an unknown mini-dose experience I had on LSD, 10 ug is likely enough for most people to experience very mild LSD-like effects including sensory and emotional enhancement, altered cognition, body sensations, stimulation, and maybe some enhancement of background hypnogogic imagery. It's like the difference between getting a buzz from a can of beer versus the drunkeness that results from slamming 6 all at once.

Hardly matters because the point of it is to effect mood boost and cognitive enhancement, not just feel something.

I never said that. You are seriously straw manning me here, and you are also straw-manning the advocates of microdosing, of which I am not one of.

It doesn't boost cognition and mood unless you truly believe that it will and you psych yourself into it, which due to placebo + focused attention

How the hell would you know? Do I need to twitch my head for you to believe me? Seriously. I am intimately familiar with the effects of psychedelics at a wide variety of doses and intensities and have no problem distinguishing between a -, a +/- (ambiguous), and a +1 level experience.

That definition is misleading and a bit loaded. I think Wikipedia has a better definition with four solid sources to back it up (emphasis mine):

"Psychedelic microdosing is a form of drug microdosing in which sub-hallucinogenic doses of serotonergic psychedelics like LSD and psilocybin are taken for claimed cognitive and emotional benefits."

Sub-hallucinogenic? What a garbage term, as if taking psychedelics are about the "hallucinations". Let me school you, following the first citation given for that statement, which points to https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6732823/. Let me quote some excerpts from that (my emphasis:

Thus, psychedelic microdosing (‘5–10 µg of LSD’ (Fadiman, 2011)) would be 5–10% of a usual psychoactive dose and lie between a full pharmacological dose (100%) and a ‘pharmacological microdose’.

[...]

Fadiman describes it as a practice ‘to use sub-threshold doses of psychedelic drugs in an attempt to enhance cognitive tasks, to boost physical energy levels, to promote emotional balance, and to treat anxiety, depression and addiction’ resulting in typically subtle though noticeable effects (Fadiman, 2011).

[...]

In addition, Johnstad emphasizes that ‘to microdose with a psychedelic drug means to take a dose small enough to provide no intoxication or significant alteration of consciousness’ (Johnstad, 2018).

People are taking microdoses like vitamins and many other supplments, not expecting any sort of acute effects but instead anticipating beneficial effects that acrue from regular repeated use over the long-term. As I've said I'm skeptical that it has any effect or that the effect is necessarily desireable for most people.

Microdosing is totally different from the mini-dosing I'm describing, which is intended to be above threshold and to cause mild perceptual effects and consciousness alteration. It is a +1. Note that from that article, microdosers keep to 5-10 ug, which is entirely consistent with 10 ug being above threshold (i.e. NOT sub-threshold) for many people.

Yeah right, so let's test this theory. I just looked up 5-MeO-MiPT in TIHKAL. It appears 1.5 mg is the lowest tested entry that has the minimalist effect noted under qualitative effects. Ok, then 1.5 mg divided by 6 gives us 0.25 mg. You're telling me that you can take 250 µg of 5-MeO-MiPT (Moxy) and trip hard enough to affect your entire day? If this is true, that means you might be one of the rare slow-metabolizers of serotonergic drugs. This would likely disqualify you from phase 1 and phase 2 testing for new medicines.

I'm glad you asked. In the entry for 5-Meo-MiPT where it says: "Dosage: 4 - 6mg, orally; 12-20 mg, smoked", I would consider 4 mg to be the minimum of the published dosage range. For many people (it's subjective on Shulgin's part), 4 mg is just barely enough for a +3. So 1/6th of that would be ~700 ug.

Unfortunately I have not tried 5-Meo-MiPT, so I don't know how I respond to it. I do tend to be very sensitive to full doses of some tryptamines like mushrooms, 4-XX-MiPT, and 5-Meo-DMT, the latter of which gives me nasty physical symptoms. As such I will approach this compound with unusual caution if I have the opportunity to try it. To be clear, my responses to LSD, phenethylamines some other tryptamines are quite average/typical.

You should try a standard dose or a dose to where you are dysfunctional once in a while on a weekend or something responsible. It's fun and music sounds sooooo good…

What the hell?! I've had many more "full-on trips" than I can count on a wide variety of substances. The last time I took a psychedelic last Fall equinox it was a sizeable mescaline dose which was very powerful and life-changing.

On a certain level I find your "advice" here very upsetting. The only reason I haven't tripped since then is because my nerves are fucked by a horrible drug withdrawal syndrome, and my last psychedelic ingestions exacerbated some symptoms for days afterwords including a suicide-inducing trigeminal neuralgia.

[---cut---]

Lol, ok I'm exaggerating, but I'm using it for effect.

You mean the effect of viciously assaulting a straw man?

Pause. LSD prodrugs appear to have similar safety profiles [...]

My point was simply that because they are extremey potent, LSD, its prodrugs, and analogs are almost always diluted before distribution. At that point, you either need to be able to trust everyone between you and the person who diluted it or you need to do quantitative analysis to figure out what you have.

The reality is that there are market forces in a market in which truth in labeling regulations do not apply. There is tremendous incentive to over-represent the contained dose, especially given that people's expectations are already inflated by their previous experiences with drugs whose doses are inflated. This is in addition to all the other caveats like LSD's propensity to decompose under certain conditions and the problems that can arise when blotters are laid or tablets are pressed. Gel tabs can at least be poured from a homogenous solution.

Not according to the DNM Avengers, the DEA and EU-equivalent agencies, Interpol, and testing non-profit organizations like DanceSafe and their ilk, according to the more recent reports I've seen.

Also gel tabs and pressed tablets have been on the rise and offer better preservation capabilities.

I don't even know what you're saying here. I don't think any of these authorities report both (1) the actual dose and the dose assumed by the user who submitted it or whatever. I contend that the majority of people assume their acid is stronger (in ug amount) than it actually is and that they also assume that the effect from a specific, properly measured dose (like 100 ug) is less than it actually is. I don't even want to get into the mess of pro-drugs and trying to establish dose equivalency and the like.

Is this from studies? What sources? Or are you claiming to be able to tell personally?

Sorry I don't have links handy, but I've seen such posted here in PD and on sites like Erowid. Certainly a large amount of stuff from the 90s was dosed around 50 ug per hit, and a lot of people who tripped in that era thought those hits were actually 100 ug, which goes on to shape future expectations.

The vast majority of people (including myself) have never had LSD in which the dose could be reliably verified. Comparing reports (including published research and the like) from people who could actually verify the dose they were getting versus the rest makes clear to me most people who take acid are generally taking less than they think they are because of inflated representation and inflated expectations.

I apologize if it seems like I'm being frustratingly contrarian or something like that. I don't mean to sound combative and it's fairly confusing, to this day, to consider how potent LSD is despite its renowned delicate chemical structure. Anyway, this is with all due respect and being said to elevate people's understanding only. One love.

Considering I posted a study showing that subjects can reliably identify activity from a 13 ug dose in a double-blind test, I don't know why you are fighting this so hard. Certainly 10 ug is in the ballpark, isn't it?
Moreover, I've experimented with mini doses with a lot of other psychedelics, which I carefully measured using a high quality balance and liquid techniques, and for most everything I've tried, the 1/6th rule holds. That is, whatever dose range Shulgin publishes, take the lower number and approximately 1/6th that is usually around +1 threshold, a mini dose which is definitely more than most people aim for when micro-dosing.

If I may say one more thing about the +1. In Shulgin's description, the a +1 is not strong enough to discern the character of the psychedelic. My view is that many of the characteristics of the psychedelic are apparent at this dose, but the picture is incomplete and distorted. For example, 2C-I is a psychedelic I find to be rather stimulating but also intensely visual at full doses. With a mini dose, the psychedaelia is apparent ableit with a "one beer" intensity level, but the stimulation is disproportionately strong. The +1 hints at the drugs character (including whether it's actually psychedelic or not) but it gives an incomplete picture which requires a +2 to reveal.

 

[Camomill]

*metacetin, I believe that's called. Miprocin would indicate 4-HO-MiPT (and then Mipracetin indicates 4-AcO-MiPT).

And then, you know, it follows the pattern of: methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, pentyl, hexyl, hectyl, octyl, nonyl, and decyl in every permutation, plus there are single-pronged versions like baeocystin and NMT, and also there are phosphate esters and acetate esters.

yeah no, you are perfectly right, as. far as i can tell, but what will probably aim for will be 4-HO-MiPT, as it is also available.
And due to it sounding the most appealing to me, instead of 4-AcO-MET...
Never dabbled into the synthetic tryptamine realms so i want to choose something i feel ok with.

I like to do art/music during the day, but well... It brings me all back to that idea that maybe psychedelics (most of them at least) seem to have a common pathway of effects on the human body and mind.
I know of 5HT2 Receptors etc, but i don't know too much about brain chemistry etc...
There is some kind of parallel in most experiences i had.
Strangely enough, a near death experience i had 1,5 years ago, seemed to have a similar effect as a peak lsd trip to me... although only for a short while until i knew i wasn't harmed from what had happened, and had calmed down enough, but still.

I guess there are also definately differences in all those experiences, and the effects felt. Drug profiles so to say

 

[unodelacosa]

notwithstanding the fact that his rating scale explicitly implies (barring exceptional circumstances) an ability to discern a particular dose to be "not a placebo" (i.e. a +1 or higher).

Shulgin never wrote 10 µg was a + experience, nor did he claim that 60 µg was a +++ experience.

No. Did I say that? Why have you implied that?

I inferred it because you implied it when you stated that you take 1/6 of a Shulgin dose for most things.

For many people, 60 ug is enough for a +3.

Oh I see where you're mistaken now. This next part is what I think you have wrong:

In TIHKAL for example, the dose range specified for LSD is 60-200 ug because this is the range of doses within which people typically have +3 experiences.

No, I'm not sure how you extrapolated that Shulgin was describing only the range for a +++ experience. Why would he be so specific for just that range? The range, as he states goes from + to +++ with a ++++ experience reserved for rare instances of a +++ experiences breaking through to a higher level due to various factors and timing that cannot be reliably reproduced on demand. Get some other opinions if you don't believe me.

10 ug is likely enough for most people to experience very mild LSD-like effects including sensory and emotional enhancement, altered cognition, body sensations, stimulation, and maybe some enhancement of background hypnogogic imagery.

Well according to a study from 2021 and another in 2023, very mild cognitive and mood enhancement from microdosing appear to be the result of placebo and the phenomenon of "unblinding" during research. Btw, good word with "hypnogogic".

How the hell would you know?

Uh oh, gettin' spicy now … I know because I'm applying logic, reason, and my own nearly 30 yrs of extensive psychedelic experience.

Do I need to twitch my head for you to believe me?

No, just logic, reason, and studies published in respected journals of science and/or medicine. Nice reference to the head twitch test though!

Seriously. I am intimately familiar with the effects of psychedelics at a wide variety of doses and intensities and have no problem distinguishing between a -, a +/- (ambiguous), and a +1 level experience.

No one said that you didn't. But detection of some mild effects is not what's being tested for; they're testing for measurable cognitive enhancement and self-reported subjective mood boost, something that microdosing so far does not appear to establish as distinguishable from placebo. You need to bear in mind how placebo can cause +1 states, and that passing out after imbibing sugar in orange juice from the placebo effect brought on by thinking that sugar was a sedative… this is what made Shulgin interested in mind-altering drugs. I know you said you know about that, but it's both a reminder and an interesting trivia fact about Shulgin for anyone else reading this.

Sub-hallucinogenic? What a garbage term

Yes, I agree. I didn't come up with the term hallucinogen and I've never liked it not considered it accurate. Regardless, I still think it's a better definition if forced to choose. My take on it is that microdosing is a placebo.

I'm glad you asked. In the entry for 5-Meo-MiPT where it says: "Dosage: 4 - 6mg, orally; 12-20 mg, smoked", I would consider 4 mg to be the minimum of the published dosage range. For many people (it's subjective on Shulgin's part), 4 mg is just barely enough for a +3.

No, 4 mg is not enough for anyone to have a +++ experience. I know, I've done the drug and seen probably a dozen or more people use it at varying doses. One can get to a + state on 4 mg. However, no one is tripping on 700 µg of Moxy. Talk to anyone who has experience with weighing out and taking Moxy and I promise you they will agree with me.

So 1/6th of that would be ~700 ug.

Yeah the math is right, but your expectation there is the result of your misinterpretation of Shulgin's effects scale.

Unfortunately I have not tried 5-Meo-MiPT, so I don't know how I respond to it.

Yes, it is unfortunate you made that your example without having experience with it while I indeed have had quite a bit of experience and can attest that 0.7 mg of Moxy ain't doing much if anything.

I do tend to be very sensitive to full doses of some tryptamines

So whyTF are you jumping down my throat for suspecting that you're sensitive to serotonergic drugs? You just admitted here that you think you are sensitive.

like mushrooms, 4-XX-MiPT, and 5-Meo-DMT, the latter of which gives me nasty physical symptoms.

Yeah 5-MeO-DMT nauseates me every single time, and I don't care for it because of this. But it's not just you and I, this is a common response to 5-MeO-DMT. It also doesn't mean someone is sensitive to it, either. You know, every once in a while you might encounter someone with more knowledge on a topic. This might be one of those times for you. And that's neither a flex, nor me being argumentative.

Honestly, I don't think you're a sensitive user. I think you just need to recalibrate your internal Shulgin scale upon gaining the correct calibration. You don't need to get so upset for me disagreeing with you and pointing out the mistakes. I'm not straw-manning your argument, either. I've been quoting you directly and paraphrasing Shulgin. I'm not ascribing some easily attacked argument you didn't make, either. You yourself claimed that 60 µg of LSD is a +++ experience for "most people".

There is tremendous incentive to over-represent the contained dose

LSD trafficking is a bit different, naive though this might initially sound. I also saw that article about 90s doses, but I don't recall the extent to which they considered product degradation to factor into these findings. From what I've seen, LSD is often kept in less-than-ideal storage conditions. Conversely, Owsley would pump out 250 µg tablets in the mid-to-late 60s. So if your point is that it's impossible to know your dose, wouldn't it thus be impossible to microdose with any accuracy. You have to be wrong about one of those two things.

I want to point out also that you're quoting a paper from 2011, and I'm quoting papers from 2021 and 2023. I'm also open to the idea that I'm wrong, but I have yet to see data indicating otherwise. The latest research indicates placebo.

While you say there's tremendous incentive to over-represent, I think there is an equal incentive to produce stronger doses that will outperform weaker doses in the market. Some might disagree, but I think that reputation matters in the drug dealing "game" as it were.

LSD's propensity to decompose under certain conditions and the problems that can arise when blotters are laid or tablets are pressed. Gel tabs can at least be poured from a homogenous solution.

How do you think liquid LSD is produced? From a heterogenous solution? No. And what do you think blotter paper is laid with other than a homogenous mixture? And before you argue about uneven dispersion of LSD on blotter, you should realize that the capillary action within the fibers of blotter paper actually help to reduce this effect. Not saying it doesn't happen, but you should also consider how gel solutions generally require some level of heat, which we know causes some LSD degradation. Also, gel can be relatively thick or thin in areas of a sheet of gel tabs, and those sheets usually have a wide trim border running around the sheet of gel tabs. Is this measured and accounted for? I doubt it. There's always a margin of error. The pharmaceutical industry also has allowable margins of error for their products. Yes, oversight would obviously help, but without it we're also not just cast into the dark ages, you know… Hell, I could buy a used GC-MS machine on eBay if I really wanted to go hard in the paint.

I don't even know what you're saying here.

Yes, that's very obvious. In this instance I was referring to the testing done by a group who called themselves the DNM Avengers (for dark net market avengers), and they tested drugs including various blotter acid purchased from dark net markets. They published both the claimed amount and the amount they tested as active and present on the sample. Despite knowing a lot, are you willing to admit yet that you might have accidentally calibrated your Shulgin scale incorrectly and could possibly just be wrong about this? There's no shame in admitting the mistake. Insistence on being right here is not helping you though.

Considering I posted a study showing that subjects can reliably identify activity from a 13 ug dose in a double-blind test,

Once again, reliably identifying activity is not the same as performing markedly better on a cognitive test with only variable test subjects demonstrating this boost and control test subjects showing no boost. This isn't what happened though. Now consider your study is dated 2011 and the two studies I'm referring to are from 2021 and 2023. Do you think our knowledge and understanding on this subject has regressed over the past 12 years? I can't imagine you would actually claim this.

I don't know why you are fighting this so hard.

Creepy wording. Regardless, this isn't hard, nor is this a fight. Hardly a disagreement if I can get you to see the mistake you made at the core of it all. You simply made a reading comprehension mistake regarding Shulgin's experience scale for a drug (or maybe I did, but I doubt it), and now misapplying it has led to inaccurate conclusions for you. And there's perhaps a bit of Dunning-Kruger effect going on, as well.

Read back over the section in PIHKAL where Shulgin describes those experiences, and pay attention to what he describes as titrating up to the proper dose. He's not calling this range +1. Setting aside Shulgin's scale for a moment, 60 µg is a very light dose, what should be a very mild trip for most folks. Shulgin even says at some point in PIHKAL, recalling a story, how he and Anne took 100 mics to enhance sex which was just enough for light visuals and erotic enhancement without being heavy and distracting. Meanwhile 10 µg - 25 mg might well have discernible effects for most folks, but the reason most people microdose is cognitive enhancement and mood boost. For this former purpose it appears that it is indistinguishable from placebo and therefore not a candidate for this to be developed into a medicine used at that dose range for this purpose.

I think once you calibrate your scale and deepen your understanding of this subject a bit, you'll agree with me. FWIW, you do have an impressive depth of knowledge on the topic compared to most, and you have a decent understanding of many adjunct concepts. I hope I've shown you a few ways in which your argument collapses, and that I also understand how this happened and why it's not a big deal, just something to fix for future convos and debates you might find yourself in IRL. I'm only trying to help my fellow drug enthusiasts become better informed. Much love.