Difference between good\bad LSD?

[adf1234]

Title says it all, I'm pretty new to LSD and just wondering what are the major differences between good and bad acid?

 

[Roger&Me]

From the book Practical LSD Manufacture by Uncle Fester (page 69, Chapter 10 - Solvent Management):

A cursory reading of this text will make it plain to everyone that
the production of LSD involves heavy usage of solvents. From the
defatting and extraction of the crops to the crystallization of pure
LSD, a variety of solvents must be used in large amounts relative to
the product to get a fairly pure product.
"Fairly pure product"... how we starved masses long for such a
thing. Back in the 70s when I dropped my first doses of acid, the
stories were already impossibly ingrained in the consuming public's
mind that the acid was cut with speed or strychnine. All of the stories
are easily disproved, yet they persist to this day. If the entire weight of a
blotter paper was made of pure meth or strychnine, its effect would be
less than pronounced. The truth of the matter is that lysergic-
similar compounds contaminating the LSD are responsible for these
undesirable effects. From clavine alkaloids to unhydrolysed ergot
alkaloids, to unreacted lysergic acid, or lysergic acid hydrazides to iso-
LSD and God knows what substances created by the mishandling of
the raw materials and product, a contaminated product is much easier to
make than a pure one.

 

[yageman2]

People who manufacture lsd know their shit.
If you get bad acid it was made by a borderline retarded set of chemists and their crew of retarded dorks who dont know how to lay lsd properly.

So,
Most lsd is lsd through and through. Most of these guys wash it as many times as they can, because they are not assholes. They want to share it with you no matter how uncontrollable dealers become down the line.
Plus, impurities for the most part dont do a damn thing unless you are taking more than 1000-1500 ugs. Even then the trip outweighs the effects of any impurities and all you would be able to notice would be a subtle and different dirty feel. Its no big deal.

Im just saying that these people know what they are doing.
Unclean acid is almost a non issue. Never has been a big issue.

What yalls need to worry about is getting good hits. Some of the shit out there these days is hilarious.
Hows your wow?
WoW...........lol
Ya, white on white unperfed. Give me a fuckin break.
I dont trust that shit unless I know the person dishing it out.
Ive felt this way since 1999.
Still, alot of that stuff is fuggin awesome. Some is of very low potency.
Its just that sometimes some asshole layed the stuff, not to say its bad L.
Have faith in your lsd, and then try it.
Its most likely worth your time.

 

[Toast to the Spirits]

/\ This guy pretty much said everything I wanted to say.

 

[Mjäll]

/\ This guy pretty much said everything I wanted to say.

Yes, the only thing to worry about is potency, pretty much. This is from what I've gathered over bluelight and other different pages.

Basically, the people who can write properly and seem intelligent always are of this opinion. People with spelling errors and logical inconcistencies often believe that there are many different types of LSD, one of them inherently better than the others, and that they have some magical foolproof ability to distinguish.

 

[B9]

People with spelling errors and logical inconcistencies often believe that there are many different types of LSD,

You juast described me perfectly but but but trhere' only one LSD & loads of substituted amides as well
+23 to roger for highlighting the real reason behind genuine LSD which has bad side effects - unreacted ergotamine sounds nasty & from the effect descpription I was given from F & B I strongly suspect I've happened across some several years ago.

 

[Mjäll]

My argumentum ad populum was a bit dirty, I admit. :D

I never heard of the ergotamine thing, to be frank. Interesting.

 

[B9]

My argumentum ad populum was a bit dirty, I admit.

Aye it was a bit but it made me laugh - yeah there's also other potential contaminants which may cause side effects dependent upon the route to manufacture & the skill/integrity of the chemist.

 

[love_sex_desire]

Excuse me for double-posting but I posted this in the N & S America forum, but find it increasingly relevant right here. I want to find out about bitter tasting blotter that is actually LSD and not DOx.

I always assumed that bitter tasting blotter that is actually LSD was bitter because of by-products from the synthesis. ????

IME the bitter tasting LSD blotter usually had a grey stain on the back of the blotter, fairly consistent across the whole sheet.

Is the taste and stain maybe from the solvent used to dilute the LSD?
Or synthesis by-products?
Or is the taste from the ink?

Any other possibilities? I'd like to get to the bottom of this. I never understood why some LSD blotter was bitter. IME a lot of the time the bitter LSD was really potent, but seemed a little sketchy. Maybe it seemed sketchy cuz it was really potent?

 

[dcraver877]

all the bitter tabs i've had were NOT lsd.

 

[Feste]

There were Hoffman bicycle blotters around that were a bitter not too long ago, I think most people agreed it was the inks.

 

[love_sex_desire]

^^ It's a possibility but I don't really buy the whole ink causing the taste speculation. I've had the same blotter picture with the same design and obviously the same ink, but different batches of different potencies had taste and others did not. The more potent batch had a stronger taste, so IME it definitely was not the ink. I always assumed it was some impurity/by-product from the synthesis.

 

[Delsyd]

From the book Practical LSD Manufacture by Uncle Fester (page 69, Chapter 10 - Solvent Management):

The truth of the matter is that lysergic-
similar compounds contaminating the LSD are responsible for these
undesirable effects. From clavine alkaloids to unhydrolysed ergot
alkaloids, to unreacted lysergic acid, or lysergic acid hydrazides to iso-
LSD and God knows what substances created by the mishandling of
the raw materials and product, a contaminated product is much easier to
make than a pure one.

People who manufacture lsd know their shit.
If you get bad acid it was made by a borderline retarded set of chemists and their crew of retarded dorks who dont know how to lay lsd properly.

Not all acid cooks are enlightened gurus trying to spread the love. Im sure there are plenty who do it for the cash and could care less about leaving some byproducts behind.

Most lsd is lsd through and through. Most of these guys wash it as many times as they can, because they are not assholes. They want to share it with you no matter how uncontrollable dealers become down the line.
Plus, impurities for the most part dont do a damn thing unless you are taking more than 1000-1500 ugs. Even then the trip outweighs the effects of any impurities and all you would be able to notice would be a subtle and different dirty feel. Its no big deal.

Most cooks are not assholes, maybe.
The fact is some can be and are. Dirty acid is NOT a myth.
even in doses of 100-400ug you can notice a difference if you're experienced enough.
Good LSD is completely transparant on the body IME. Dirty acid will give me bloating, gas, and the general quality of the trip is effected by these factors making the trip itself feel worse.

Im just saying that these people know what they are doing.
Unclean acid is almost a non issue. Never has been a big issue.

What yalls need to worry about is getting good hits. Some of the shit out there these days is hilarious.
Hows your wow?
WoW...........lol
Ya, white on white unperfed. Give me a fuckin break.
I dont trust that shit unless I know the person dishing it out.
Ive felt this way since 1999.
Still, alot of that stuff is fuggin awesome. Some is of very low potency.
Its just that sometimes some asshole layed the stuff, not to say its bad L.
Have faith in your lsd, and then try it.
Its most likely worth your time.

Dirty acid is not a myth. Check Rogers post.
And i would much rather get weak clean acid than potent dirty acid.
The quality of the trip is far more important than how strong your tabs are.

And trust me when i say ive had enough experience dealing with LSD to know what im talking about.

^^ It's a possibility but I don't really buy the whole ink causing the taste speculation. I've had the same blotter picture with the same design and obviously the same ink, but different batches of different potencies had taste and others did not. The more potent batch had a stronger taste, so IME it definitely was not the ink. I always assumed it was some impurity/by-product from the synthesis.

The only bitter blotters ive ever had were Hoffman anniversary blotter and Rolling Stones. Both tested positive for LSD so they were def not DOx.
They also fell into the catagory of "dirty acid" IMO and were more potent than blotters i get locally (the bitter ones came from the UK).
Then again ive gotten strong, tasteless blotters here in th US which would also fall into the Dirty catagory.

So in truth you question is very hard to answer.

It could be ink, byproducts or any number of other things.

 

[B9]

The only bitter blotters ive ever had were Hoffman anniversary blotter and Rolling Stones. Both tested positive for LSD so they were def not DOx.

I sampled these also & agree they were LSD. good shit as well I'd fancy some more of the Rolling Stones ones in particular.

 

[Delsyd]

yes the stones were lovely indeed.

 

[TheAzo]

Weren't the books by Uncle Fester full of exaggerations and bullshit? I recall some really nasty things being said about him within the Rhodium archives, and the fact that he's publishing a book called "practical LSD manufacture" (and he has one for other drugs)...

Just the fact that he's referring to preparation from crops should be a red flag, since most LSD is prepared from Ergotamine diverted from medical use (it's used to treat headaches), prepared through the method described by Shulgin. Or, should i say, that is the most practical starting material.

Any contaminant in LSD would have to be goddamned strong to have an effect, since the dose of LSD is 100ug and most of the material going into a hit is LSD. There are a few degradation products of LSD that form fairly readily in mishandling, but they are not biologically active. (see shulgin LSD entry)

My assessment is that, if the product you get is indeed LSD, and not some DOX, the differences between experiences are not due to "good" or "bad" LSD, but the large effect of differences in set and setting between different experiences.

 

[B9]

There's different grades of LSD - that is differing degrees of purification & yet you feel that's an irrelevance?

 

[greenmeanies]

i have a feeling that info from uncle fester is 100% speculation.

coming from a lab organic chem perspective, when you are performing a series of reactions as complex as acid synth, there is little chance for these kinds of impurities to compound in the process. if you don't purify with column chromatography after each step, you will get polymerizations and side reactions that make it IMPOSSIBLE to even isolate your final product at the end.

ergotamine in LSD about as impossible as having a boiled egg hatch right before you ate it. you would be able to tell halfway through that something was VERY WRONG

all of you who think you can tell clean from dirty cid? set and setting. did you take notes on your diet the days preceding your dose? did you know the chemist who laid the blotter? did you consult your astrologist to know if your stars were aligned properly? did you bless each of the cardinal directions? (lol jk)

the only impurity in LSD i can agree with is iso-LSD. even unreacted lysergic acid would be trivial to separate because it should not crystallize as a salt with tartaric acid.

 

[yucatanboy2]

^ agreed from a chemist standpoint, but people can be very sloppy, and impurities can still get in.

Still, i'm of the beleif that "bad LSD" is probably due to being:
1) dilute or containing drugs at all, so the users don't get high (besides the placebo effect), thus they consider it "bad"
2) not acid, like a DOx or another PEA derivative, thus the effects are different, unexpected and therefore "bad"
or
3) acid that people have bad trips on... due to bad SET AND SETTING! I think this is why some acid is called "bad". I've had hellish body loads and no body loads from the same batch of acid. I've seen people writhe in agony for hours from acid, while I'm having an angelic, blissful trip, and vice versa. Such is the nature of a pyschedelic drug of this power. If you take acid in a safe setting, with good people and no mental hangups/problems/emotional issues, you will more than likely not have a bad trip.

And then, when someone gives "bad acid" to someone, their mind makes a preconceived notion that this acid is "bad", which causes the anxiety and mental hangups that lead to a "bad trip", which causes them to perpetuate the idea of that "batch of acid" being "bad".

I don't think taste can tell you if its bad or not, if you notice something in particular its probably from inks (or from trace solvent, which will not be harmful).

If you really think that other ergot alkaloids cause the "bad acid", then would a bad acid trip be like a Morning Glory or HBWR? I don't really beleive that bad acid has other ergotamines in it (besides LSD's decomposition products). Also, most ergotamine like LSA are less active than LSD by 10x or even more (which would lead to "bad acid" under catagory 1).

Just my rambling 2cents.

 

[fastandbulbous]

There are a few degradation products of LSD that form fairly readily in mishandling, but they are not biologically active. (see shulgin LSD entry)

Nope if you read the section again he says that they're not active as psychedelics; this is totally different to saying they're not biologically active. Iso LSD will still interact with receptors other than the 5HT2a (which is generally agreed to be the one for psychedelic activity) - if you look at LSD's receptor binding profile, you'll find it's an utter floozy of a drug (it interacts with most of the other 5HT receptors, as well as the recetors for dopamine, noradrenaline & histamine). Now just because the carboxamide and hydrogen change places in iso-LSD and make it inactive at the 5HT2a, this in no way means that it's inactive at all the other receptors. As such it's biologically active, just not a psychedelic

If you really think that other ergot alkaloids cause the "bad acid", then would a bad acid trip be like a Morning Glory or HBWR? I don't really beleive that bad acid has other ergotamines in it (besides LSD's decomposition products). Also, most ergotamine like LSA are less active than LSD by 10x or even more (which would lead to "bad acid" under catagory 1).

No I'd think you'd have to be a pretty crap synthetic chemist to end up with a lot of ergotamine in the final product, but even if it is due to a major fuck up in the synthesis and ergotamine makes it's way through to the final product, ergotamine acts at more than just the 5HT receptors (medically it's used because of it's action at the alpha adrenoreceptors) and at those other receptors LSD is not the most potent drug going.

Personally I feel that any physical side effects that aren't due to psychosomatic causes like anxiety are due to activity at dopaminergic, noradrenergic and possibly even other 5HT recptors than 5HT2a


Basically all LSD is good! 'Bad' LSD is due to things that aren't LSD, but are very closely related, getting into the final product (either through sloppy synthesis or degradation of the original LSD - if I were a betting person, I'd say nearly all will be due to iso-LSD or possibly even the compound formed when the double bond of the C ring is saturated, making it a single bond, like LSD's reaction with chlorine in tap water - I forget what it's been named)