SKL
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 14,647
I have posted this elsewhere, but I have not really yet shouted it from the rooftops, so I'm going to make an attempt to do so again. So as to give a bit of context, for one who's been around the market through most of the years that are described herein, at varying levels from wide-eyed naïf to serious operator—
Substituing various other drugs for LSD, sold as "acid" on blotter (and in other ways) via various venues, is a known phenomenon; but I'd add that DO-compounds these days are relatively rare and NBOMe-type drugs are far more common as faux acid derivatives; these drugs to have certain things in common, though. one of the hallmarks of the classic (DOx) psychedelic amphetamines is a long duration (from long, as in DOB, to very long, as in DOI, with stops between and perhaps even further) and a bitter taste; NBOMe-drugs, however, from what I've been told (I have never tried them, I quit the game before they really came out as more than hypotheticals and very exotic samples) have a shorter onset and duration, I would suspect them to be bitter, as well; hence the saying, “If it's bitter, it's a spitter,” which originated, as far as I can tell, in the days immediately following the Pickard (missile silo) bust, where a quite large commercial scale production of 5-MeO-DMT- and DOB-containing blotters went on for a relatively limited amount of time, but given that DOB can be considerably unpleasant, DOC become a more common adulterant.
However, this was around the time that the market for acid properly re-established itself in the usual venues, so 2-substituted psychedelic amphetamines falsely marked as "LSD" became less common outside of backwater markets; however, the NBOMe-drugs, these days, due to their being abhorrently easily available and almost unbelievably cheap, are, as I am told and as statistics and anecdote (not to say capitalistic logic, with a concurrent upswing in the pricage of LSD and a wholesale difference at 1.5 to several orders of magnitude in price) would seem to reflect, are much more common, despite their inherent dangers in overdose being worse than the 2-substituted psychedelic amphetamines (DOx's) which are, while also quite cheap, not quite as au courant with the current market, and, in fact, are rather desirable among some from our own scene (i.e., Bluelight types, knowledgeable about the diversity of drug-types and interested in collecting a variety of subspecies and labeling them, rather than a commercial market for bits of paper called "acid.")
I say this only to recount, more or less off the top of my head, some of the relevant history, not to make a judgment on what you may have taken or may not have taken, or whether, and how, you may have been given a ride, in terms of what you were sold (although, these days, even many less-informed and less-professional dealers are unaware of what they are selling); so there is a lot of uncertainty here, I would not confidently say that you had taken a DO-drug, unless this all, more or less, matches up (and indeed, perhaps this is what you are saying when you say "after further research…" in which case consider this post made only for posterity) … but even in such a case, so many variables remain.
to reiterate what you will need to do a proper test are:
(a) As more or less everyone knows today, Ehrlich's reagent, to detect the presence of indoles, i.e., speaking ideally, tryptamine-based psychedelics, which, in the good old days, on blotter, would lead to a false positive only in the case of 5-MeO-AMT, which, these days, on blotter, or in fact elsewhere, is nearly unheard-of; it is not a pleasant drug, although it is interesting, as is non-ring-substituted AMT itself, being to the skeleton of phenethylamine as amphetamine (AMP) is to the skeleton of phenethylamine, which gives it some of it's own unique pharmacological and experiential qualities; AMP, I'd say—and the whole of this, more or less, is a footnote—is worth the price of admission, whereas 5-MeO-DMT is best avoided; but anyways, in the terms of the commercial market, with 5-MeO-AMT being almost unheard of, one may cautiously equate a positive (purple) reaction with Ehrlich's reagent (DMAB) as being a presumptive positive for egoloids, although it will also cause a positive reaction for the various natural and synthetic tryptamines, however, none of which, save 5-MeO-AMT, with the possible exception of a few truly obscure compounds, possibly can be stored on blotter.
However, some unscrupulous, and I would go so far as to say potentially murderous, people have put the BOMamines, such as 25I-NBOMe (not 2,5-NBOMe, I prefer the nomenclature, in serious discourse anyway 2CI-NBOMe, as being more descriptive, although, as has been the case with some press articles, it risks confusion with 2CI proper, which requires a dosage roughly an order of magnitude larger, and this confusion has itself resulted in fatalities, so it might actually, as a community in general, do better to name such a thing IMPE-2CAI, or something of the like, anyone who knows the chemistry involved will know how I derive that, but just as to sound really intimidating, because it should be.)
We know this. DanceSafe, inter alia, have marketed Ehrlich's reagent as a testing kit to rule out IMPE-2CAI (to use a nomenclature I've just coined, which I rather like. "Impy," like little devils.) Unfortunately, those for whom the unethical profit-drive is strong enough have devised a rather obvious solution to this "problem," they have laced the solution containing the offending phenethylamine with an indole of one kind or another (really, any will do), thus providing a "false" Ehrlich-positive, although this is not actually the fault of the Ehrlich reagent, but rather of it's interpretation.
Therefore, I would always insist, for the sake of harm reduction, of another step in testing;
(b) An important caution. The addition of the Marquis reagent, which should, along with the Mecke reagent be familiar to people who are involved with testing putative "Ecstasy" tablets. IMPE/NBOMe-drugs should react with Marquis—variously; I've heard green or yellow, depending on the atom in the 2-position on the first ring, i.e. 2Cx-NBOMe, or even black, but anyhow, a reaction will occur, whereas in the case of LSD (or another genuine indole compound, cf. above including 5-MeO-AMT, which is no longer a concern anymore, and which may cause a positive Marquis reaction, I'm not wholly sure, but again, in today's market, it is not something that I would worry about.)
So,
THIS IS FOR RESULTS ON BLOTTER OR SMALL DROPS OF LIQUID, NOT FOR PILLS OR CAPSULES. SOME OF THE "PRESUMPTION" REGARDING LSD, ETC. IS BECAUSE OF THE TINY AMOUNTS OF DRUG INVOLVED.
I would like to emphasize this strongly, and consider it an important warning, I would like to post this further and see further circulation for it.
P.S. 2.5 in2 sheets are standard, perforated or unperforated. Deviation from this doesn't necessarily mean anything, but people that don't keep to tradition should be treated with a higher index of suspicion. Fancy botter art, also, in a way, should keep one on one's toes; good acid certainly does circulate as such, but it is easy and cheap to get fancy blotter art in blank pages. A LOT of good LSD circulates on blank unperforated paper. This is an easy and low-key way to distribute the product. Gaudy imagery is attention-seeking, something that can be done both for reasons that are either simply ostentatious, or actually outright nefarious. Good acid on fancy blotter is typically very good acid and sometimes made for special occasions, etc. or for special ceremonial or advertising or messaging purposes in the underground. IT IS, however, exceedingly easy to fake. Much easier than pill presses or even heroin stamps, although the intention is the same.
P.P.S. The flourescent/blacklight test is questionable. A lot of blotter paper also flouresces, in and of itself, or appears to, to the untrained eye which does not know exactly what they're looking at, particularly in the case of whiter paper. This is not a good presumptive test for the general public, either.
I would strongly agree however, that blotters should be taken sublingually, rather than orally, as LSD certainly is active when administered as such, but not necessarily other drugs. Not necessarily. As yet the science is not certain on all the drugs in question.
TL;DR: A POSITIVE EHRLICH IS NO LONGER A SAFE PRESUMPTION AGAINST A BOMAMINE OR PSYCHEDELIC AMPHETAMINE PASSED OFF AS LSD. I have direct information that this sort of forgery is indeed going on, and on a non-insignificant scale; in product which is distributed via the so-called "darkweb," therefore internationally. All users of commercial LSD tabs, sourced either in person or from some email address, had ought to take notice.
Substituing various other drugs for LSD, sold as "acid" on blotter (and in other ways) via various venues, is a known phenomenon; but I'd add that DO-compounds these days are relatively rare and NBOMe-type drugs are far more common as faux acid derivatives; these drugs to have certain things in common, though. one of the hallmarks of the classic (DOx) psychedelic amphetamines is a long duration (from long, as in DOB, to very long, as in DOI, with stops between and perhaps even further) and a bitter taste; NBOMe-drugs, however, from what I've been told (I have never tried them, I quit the game before they really came out as more than hypotheticals and very exotic samples) have a shorter onset and duration, I would suspect them to be bitter, as well; hence the saying, “If it's bitter, it's a spitter,” which originated, as far as I can tell, in the days immediately following the Pickard (missile silo) bust, where a quite large commercial scale production of 5-MeO-DMT- and DOB-containing blotters went on for a relatively limited amount of time, but given that DOB can be considerably unpleasant, DOC become a more common adulterant.
However, this was around the time that the market for acid properly re-established itself in the usual venues, so 2-substituted psychedelic amphetamines falsely marked as "LSD" became less common outside of backwater markets; however, the NBOMe-drugs, these days, due to their being abhorrently easily available and almost unbelievably cheap, are, as I am told and as statistics and anecdote (not to say capitalistic logic, with a concurrent upswing in the pricage of LSD and a wholesale difference at 1.5 to several orders of magnitude in price) would seem to reflect, are much more common, despite their inherent dangers in overdose being worse than the 2-substituted psychedelic amphetamines (DOx's) which are, while also quite cheap, not quite as au courant with the current market, and, in fact, are rather desirable among some from our own scene (i.e., Bluelight types, knowledgeable about the diversity of drug-types and interested in collecting a variety of subspecies and labeling them, rather than a commercial market for bits of paper called "acid.")
I say this only to recount, more or less off the top of my head, some of the relevant history, not to make a judgment on what you may have taken or may not have taken, or whether, and how, you may have been given a ride, in terms of what you were sold (although, these days, even many less-informed and less-professional dealers are unaware of what they are selling); so there is a lot of uncertainty here, I would not confidently say that you had taken a DO-drug, unless this all, more or less, matches up (and indeed, perhaps this is what you are saying when you say "after further research…" in which case consider this post made only for posterity) … but even in such a case, so many variables remain.
to reiterate what you will need to do a proper test are:
(a) As more or less everyone knows today, Ehrlich's reagent, to detect the presence of indoles, i.e., speaking ideally, tryptamine-based psychedelics, which, in the good old days, on blotter, would lead to a false positive only in the case of 5-MeO-AMT, which, these days, on blotter, or in fact elsewhere, is nearly unheard-of; it is not a pleasant drug, although it is interesting, as is non-ring-substituted AMT itself, being to the skeleton of phenethylamine as amphetamine (AMP) is to the skeleton of phenethylamine, which gives it some of it's own unique pharmacological and experiential qualities; AMP, I'd say—and the whole of this, more or less, is a footnote—is worth the price of admission, whereas 5-MeO-DMT is best avoided; but anyways, in the terms of the commercial market, with 5-MeO-AMT being almost unheard of, one may cautiously equate a positive (purple) reaction with Ehrlich's reagent (DMAB) as being a presumptive positive for egoloids, although it will also cause a positive reaction for the various natural and synthetic tryptamines, however, none of which, save 5-MeO-AMT, with the possible exception of a few truly obscure compounds, possibly can be stored on blotter.
However, some unscrupulous, and I would go so far as to say potentially murderous, people have put the BOMamines, such as 25I-NBOMe (not 2,5-NBOMe, I prefer the nomenclature, in serious discourse anyway 2CI-NBOMe, as being more descriptive, although, as has been the case with some press articles, it risks confusion with 2CI proper, which requires a dosage roughly an order of magnitude larger, and this confusion has itself resulted in fatalities, so it might actually, as a community in general, do better to name such a thing IMPE-2CAI, or something of the like, anyone who knows the chemistry involved will know how I derive that, but just as to sound really intimidating, because it should be.)
We know this. DanceSafe, inter alia, have marketed Ehrlich's reagent as a testing kit to rule out IMPE-2CAI (to use a nomenclature I've just coined, which I rather like. "Impy," like little devils.) Unfortunately, those for whom the unethical profit-drive is strong enough have devised a rather obvious solution to this "problem," they have laced the solution containing the offending phenethylamine with an indole of one kind or another (really, any will do), thus providing a "false" Ehrlich-positive, although this is not actually the fault of the Ehrlich reagent, but rather of it's interpretation.
Therefore, I would always insist, for the sake of harm reduction, of another step in testing;
(b) An important caution. The addition of the Marquis reagent, which should, along with the Mecke reagent be familiar to people who are involved with testing putative "Ecstasy" tablets. IMPE/NBOMe-drugs should react with Marquis—variously; I've heard green or yellow, depending on the atom in the 2-position on the first ring, i.e. 2Cx-NBOMe, or even black, but anyhow, a reaction will occur, whereas in the case of LSD (or another genuine indole compound, cf. above including 5-MeO-AMT, which is no longer a concern anymore, and which may cause a positive Marquis reaction, I'm not wholly sure, but again, in today's market, it is not something that I would worry about.)
So,
THIS IS FOR RESULTS ON BLOTTER OR SMALL DROPS OF LIQUID, NOT FOR PILLS OR CAPSULES. SOME OF THE "PRESUMPTION" REGARDING LSD, ETC. IS BECAUSE OF THE TINY AMOUNTS OF DRUG INVOLVED.
| Ehrlich | Marquis | |
| (+) | (−) | indole; presumptive, but not wholly guaranteed, lysergamide |
| (+) | (+) | mixed; presumptive falsely-added indole or possibly 5-MeO-AMT |
| (−) | (+) | no indole; presumptive psychedelic amphetamine, further testing can be done with Marquius + Mecke reagents, see Erowid's page on the subject, which contains a good deal of useful information in general. |
I would like to emphasize this strongly, and consider it an important warning, I would like to post this further and see further circulation for it.
P.S. 2.5 in2 sheets are standard, perforated or unperforated. Deviation from this doesn't necessarily mean anything, but people that don't keep to tradition should be treated with a higher index of suspicion. Fancy botter art, also, in a way, should keep one on one's toes; good acid certainly does circulate as such, but it is easy and cheap to get fancy blotter art in blank pages. A LOT of good LSD circulates on blank unperforated paper. This is an easy and low-key way to distribute the product. Gaudy imagery is attention-seeking, something that can be done both for reasons that are either simply ostentatious, or actually outright nefarious. Good acid on fancy blotter is typically very good acid and sometimes made for special occasions, etc. or for special ceremonial or advertising or messaging purposes in the underground. IT IS, however, exceedingly easy to fake. Much easier than pill presses or even heroin stamps, although the intention is the same.
P.P.S. The flourescent/blacklight test is questionable. A lot of blotter paper also flouresces, in and of itself, or appears to, to the untrained eye which does not know exactly what they're looking at, particularly in the case of whiter paper. This is not a good presumptive test for the general public, either.
I would strongly agree however, that blotters should be taken sublingually, rather than orally, as LSD certainly is active when administered as such, but not necessarily other drugs. Not necessarily. As yet the science is not certain on all the drugs in question.
TL;DR: A POSITIVE EHRLICH IS NO LONGER A SAFE PRESUMPTION AGAINST A BOMAMINE OR PSYCHEDELIC AMPHETAMINE PASSED OFF AS LSD. I have direct information that this sort of forgery is indeed going on, and on a non-insignificant scale; in product which is distributed via the so-called "darkweb," therefore internationally. All users of commercial LSD tabs, sourced either in person or from some email address, had ought to take notice.
Last edited:
