• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Dirty Acid FAQ & Discussion

Do you believe qualitative differences between LSD products can matter / be felt?

  • Yes: the difference between dirty and clean LSD can be felt

    Votes: 8 32.0%
  • No: there is only LSD

    Votes: 17 68.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Deinonychus

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Messages
402

v4wbp4.jpg



"Dirty Acid/LSD" FAQ & poll



Q: What does the phrase 'dirty acid' mean?

NSFW:

A: Lysergic acid diethylamide, or LSD, has been used for its psychedelic properties for the better part of a century. Over this period of time, a consistent undercurrent has been the propensity for some users to experience negative side effects – typically in the form of bodily malaise or tension – that are separate from the concept of a 'bad trip'. The distinction is primarily based upon the definition of a bad trip as an experience where the individual that is under the influence experiences a significant number of unpleasant, negative thoughts, which are not easily dispelled and may ultimately influence the entire character of the trip, spiraling out of control in a cycle of anxiety, guilt, anger, or sorrow. While users of psychedelic drugs will often experience negative thoughts during a psychedelic experience independent of what substance is being used, this does not constitute a bad trip unless the initial seed of discomfort grows and subsumes all positive aspects of the trip, replacing them with looping trains of thought and amplifying the negative emotions until they completely dominate the character of the experience.

The concept of dirty acid on the other hand is generally accepted to consist of negative effects that exist primarily in the body instead of the mind. Often the description of these effects includes some measure of tension throughout the body in the muscles and tendons, a related soreness in the body's joints, sometimes accompanied by distressing symptoms in the stomach or intestines. Users may experience a feeling of being 'strung out', and while the effects are often manifest in the body it is also true that some portion of people experiencing symptoms ascribed to dirty acid also feel that there is a qualitative difference in the mental tone of the trip compared to their other experiences with LSD, and feeling 'frazzled' or 'worn out' mentally contributes to the aforementioned overall impression of being 'strung out'.

These symptoms will not necessarily prevent the user from having a positive or at least neutral experience. That is to say that experiencing the set of symptoms that is ascribed to dirty acid does not necessarily have to lead to having a 'bad trip'. And if there are symptoms that are experienced by a user of LSD that are felt to be unusually harsh, or out of character compared to the user's previous experiences, then necessarily there must be some difference in the quality of the LSD, should the user believe that these effects result from the acid being 'dirty'.

If the impurity of the LSD is to blame, then it follows that the portion of the chemicals on a piece of blotter or dissolved in a vial of liquid that is not (+)-d-LSD – the sole centrally-active isomer of LSD – will be responsible for the negative effects in body and mind. Naturally, not everyone believes that the potential for unusual side effects is a result of dirty acid, in accordance with the wide variety of opinion on almost all matters concerning psychoactive chemicals, and some believe that dirty acid is not an extant phenomenon at all, being instead a natural consequence of the variable nature of both the drug LSD itself as well as the variable state of mind of the user and the various settings in which the user will be tripping.

This FAQ then attempts to clarify the issue. Does dirty acid exist, and if so what may be the mechanism that is responsible for the phenomenon? What criteria must be met by any potential candidates for the impurities that would cause acid to feel dirty? How does the inherently variable nature of the drug itself affect the issue? By applying the principles of logical deduction and rational analysis we seek to analyze the issue herein, motivated by the spirit of scientific enquiry in the face of a lack of definitive data.


An inquiry into potential causes of any 'dirty' qualities LSD product might have:

Q: What properties would a potential contaminant require?

NSFW:

A: Whether one wishes to illuminate the subject of dirty acid to prove that it is a real phenomenon, or instead prefers to explain the symptom set of dirty acid syndrome as a natural result of LSD itself, the question of contamination must be raised. If dirty acid is real then a contaminant will be the culprit. If it is not real, supporting evidence would have to include the absence of a contaminant. However, as amateur drug enthusiasts instead of professional researchers, it is difficult to unambiguously prove the presence or absence of a contaminant for lack of proper equipment – such as gas chromatography / mass spectrometers and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers – that would be necessary to unambiguously prove the presence and then identity of any contaminants.

Due to the inability to easily settle this problem using advanced equipment, we will apply our curiosity about the veracity of any claims that dirty acid syndrome is a real phenomenon to examining what characteristics a contaminant would need to possess. These characteristics include an intrinsic activity at incredibly low dose levels and a symptom set that is unpleasant but not harmful or fatal.

The first such characteristic as mentioned is the required potency of any contaminant. A piece of blotter, frequently found to be the delivery method for 'dirty' acid, will be dosed with a given amount of drug. Depending on the chemical, the required dose will vary, from potentially several milligrams in the case of 2C-B blotter that is meant to be used several blotters at a time, to 0.5 to 1 mg for NBOMes, to 100 micrograms for a piece of acid blotter that is well-dosed.

Acid however possesses four different isomers, the (+)- and (-)- versions of LSD and iso-LSD respectively. These four stereoisomers are the result of LSD possessing two chiral centers: one at the 5-carbon and one at the 8-carbon. In practice however, a large amount of the acid on the market is derived ultimately from precursors such as ergotamine that are extracted from fungal or less-commonly plant matter, and (-)-LSD and (-)-iso-LSD are not actually found in nature. Therefor the product of a synthesis that begins with only (+)-ergotamine and (+)-iso-ergotamine will yield only (+)-LSD and (+)-iso-LSD, so only two of the isomers have to be taken into account when determining the amount of the racemate formed from both of those isomers that is applied to blotter.

Since LSD and iso-LSD interconvert – keeping their respective optical isomerism of (+) or (-) – we may assume that for each molecule of LSD that becomes iso-LSD, a molecule of iso-LSD makes the opposite transition. So ultimately the ratio of 1:1 between these two isomers will be preserved, and we can therefor assert that any blotter that contains 100 micrograms of *active* material will actually contain 200 micrograms – half of which will be the active isomer and half of which will be the inactive isomer. This is relevant because taking a hypothetical purity figure of 80% for example will result in very different values depending on whether the total amount of alkaloids is 100 or 200 micrograms total.

Taking that 80% figure as an example, and understanding that there is actually 200 micrograms of alkaloids present in a well-dosed blotter, we see that at most there could be 40 micrograms of contaminant. The rest of the alkaloid content would be 80 micrograms of each of the (+) isomers of LSD and iso-LSD. This quantity, 40 micrograms, is very small. In fact, this is barely even the lower bound for the dose of (+)-LSD necessary for a threshold experience, and LSD is one of the strongest known psychedelics that is known to exist.

This dose of 40 micrograms is the absolute highest possible dose of contaminant in this scenario, but the compound may have to be active at an even smaller dose. This is because it is reasonable to assume that if there is contamination, there is likely more than one contaminant. Additionally, there are other forms of LSD like the inactive lumi-LSD that may partially make up the 20% of our total alkaloid content that is neither (+)-LSD nor (+)-iso-LSD. However, for the purposes of this examination we will take 40 micrograms to be the quantity of contaminant and disregard these complicating factors, since this entire analysis is to one extent or another an abstraction.

Moving on to the next requirement for the hypothetical contaminant, it must produce a symptom set that is unpleasant but not truly harmful and certainly not fatal at this very low concentration. The number of known poisons and toxins that are active at concentrations this low is small, but very real. Unfortunately, identifying other substances that are indeed active at this level yet do not show terribly dangerous activity is much harder, as compounds that have an adverse effect on the human body such as neurotoxins like Sarin or VX often have their incredible potencies tied up with their immensely toxic properties. That is to say that the mechanisms that produce the incredibly dangerous effects are the same as the mechanisms that produce their high potencies; organophosphorous compounds such as the aforementioned sarin and VX are good examples of this, should the reader wish to learn further about the subject of their modes of action.

Another interesting angle to the possible effects of any contaminant reflects the symptom set that is common to lysergamides, and ergoloids in general. The effects that constitute dirty acid syndrome are often exactly those negative side effects that can be associated with having taken an ergoloids in the first place. So naturally our search for potential candidate contaminants is drawn towards ergoloids. This would have another benefit: the fourth criterion for a contaminant is not completely necessary, but the contaminant should be the result of an improper or partially incomplete acid synthesis, as it is difficult to imagine where else the contaminant would come from or how it could be introduced into the blotter. So searching amongst the ergoloids is a natural extension of both the side effects that are reported as being a result of dirty acid as well as the need for a plausible mechanism for the introduction of this contaminant into the dosing medium.

Alas, there are not any known ergoloids that for these four requirements. A list of ergoloids and their relative potencies follows, as assembled by Bluelighter Anon0631:

Ergine - Also known as LSA, this molecule is similar to LSD except that in lieu of two ethyl groups on the amide moiety, there are instead two hydrogens, creating a primary amine. The dosages for LSA are notoriously ambiguous, due mainly to the administration of this chemical in botanical form. However, Hoffman determined that an effective intramuscular dosage was 500 micrograms circa 1947. As such it is not a likely candidate since the potency is an order of magnitude too low, not even counting the difference in bioavailability between intramuscular and sublingual dosing.

Ergotamine - This is often used as raw material for the synthesis of LSD, so on that count it strongly fulfills the requirement. Additionally, it also produces strong cardiovascular effects and delirium, as in the condition of ergotism. Unfortunately, the doses required are much larger; it is used as an anti-migraine medication in the United States, at a dosage of 2 milligrams, and the dosage necessary to bring on unpleasant side effects is necessarily larger than the 2 milligram therapeutic dosage.

Lysergic acid - Lysergic acid is often one of the intermediate steps between ergotamine and LSD. It is apparently totally inactive, though what dosages it has been assayed at are unknown. It will suffice to say that it is unlikely that it is an even more potent or perhaps equally potent ergoloid than LSD, as someone somewhere would likely have discovered this effect. Even if it was a nearly poisonous compound, any activity would still be occasionally exploited by the risk-taking drug adventurer, as with datura, but we do not see this phenomenon.

Ergoline - Apparently without action, this compound is missing entirely the side chain that contains the diethylamide group in LSD. this side chain also exists in ergotamine and lysergic acid, though the amine has been replaced by an alcohol in lysergic acid, and thus it's presence would be very unlikely even as a product of poor synthesis.

Ergometrine - This compound is used medically to aid in the process of childbirth, apparently through its action upon the smooth muscles of the uterus. It is mentioned in TIHKaL that it may possess psychoactive properties between 2 and 10 milligrams, but it's use as such should be discouraged since it can exert such a powerful response within the autonomic nervous system. It is also unlikely to be produced by faulty synthetic method since the functional group that sprouts from the nitrogen of the amide side chain is dissimilar to an ethyl group, and there is only one such group instead of two, yielding a secondary amine instead of a tertiary amine such as LSD.

Taking these chemicals' properties into account, it is apparent that LSD is quite unique amongst the ergoloids. Recently there have been developed various potent lysergamides such as LSZ, where 2,4-dimethylazetidide replaces diethylamine within the structure of the overarching amide function. Additionally there have been some less recent developments where the side chain that chemists label R6 has been modified, such as ETH-LAD and AL-LAD. But out of all of the active analogues LSD appears to still reign as the most potent, possibly tied with LSZ, and in any case there is no mechanism for altering the group at R6 or inducing the formation of a dimethylazetidide without very specifically aiming for such compounds. Further, these compounds would fail as contaminant candidates on the basis of their lack of intrinsically negative physiological activity. It is possible, however unlikely, that there may be an ergoloid that is not known to science that can produce the necessary symptom set for dirty acid syndrome.

The presence of a non-ergoloid contaminant is even less tenable than that of a possibly unknown lysergamide or other ergoloid, because of both the necessity for a mechanism of introducing such an impurity as well as the paucity of potential choices. There simply aren't really candidates that have that level of activity. All things considered, the presence of a contaminant within blotter is doubtful, and experts in the field of organic chemistry categorically deny the presence of such a contaminant, preferring to ascribe the symptoms of dirty acid syndrome to the variable nature of the drug LSD itself.

However, recently several users that are proponents of dirty acid as a real phenomenon have suggested that it may not be necessary for a contaminant to have full activity at such a low concentration. They suggest that a sub-active dose may modulate the LSD experience in some way, much as the phenethylamine drug TOMSO is inactive until combined with another psychoactive, alcohol specifically. This mode of action may not be likely, but it is impossible to say at the moment, since it is possible that a contaminant could in fact be an as-yet unknown lysergamide, or another form of ergoloid, which would have unknown properties. It has additionally been suggested that the contaminant, should it exist, may in some way alter the metabolic fate of LSD, somehow creating the conditions for dirty acid syndrome to occur. This is much less likely than a sub-active dose of an unknown chemical, as there are no real analogous examples of an enzyme inhibitor shutting down or modifying an enzyme's activity at low double-digit microgram quantities. For readers interested in alterations of enzymatic metabolism, a google search on cytochrome P450 and its inhibitors should provide an easy entry into the topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dirty Acid FAQ Proposal

[original OP]

Hey there everybody! So I'be been a member of Bluelight since '03. I had a different account but for various reasons had to abandon it. In that time, I have seen threads where the subject of 'dirty acid' come up far, far too many times for me to count. Just now there's a thread about 'Chinese needlepoint' (which always sounds to me like some sort of weaving / knitting / crocheting technique) where this subject has come up again.

So, I have an idea. I'd like to create a 'Dirty Acid FAQ' thread. Not a big and dandy type thing, as non-moderators don't get to arbitrarily decide to attempt to start big and dandy threads, but rather just a standard FAQ that provides the evidence for and against the idea that there is such a thing as 'dirty acid', in theory contaminated with an active compound that is effective at less than 15 to 25 micrograms, and also is somehow able to be produced by sloppy LSD synthesis.

So what are your opinions on this subject? Is this a reasonable idea to compile the evidence on this subject, so that people on either side of the debate can have venue for their input. Specifically, a single master thread within which to present our opinions – provided we back it up with rational deduction if we lack the more preferable outright evidence – would be better in my view than reiterating our positions and repeating the same arguments time after time in thread after thread.

If people are interested, would anybody care to volunteer to submit their answers to the various potential questions in the FAQ, so that those opinions could then be synthesized into an answer that combines the input of more than one person?

If people like this idea and the mods okay it, I would offer to spend the time to compile all the input into the single authoritative FAQ, should a moderator not be interested in doing so themselves.

Let me know your opinions on whether this idea of a single, comprehensive FAQ if you please! Thanks!

D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Knowing I know 'nothing' I once got some LSD that I'd call 'dirty' under this context. It was oh 1994 I imagine.....it was definitely LSD-like..wasn't any kind of DOx and there were no NBOMEs back then. The trip had nausea and a distinct morning glory seed-like component to it. The gentleman I procured it from (who was my regular LSD source way back then) said it was 'old' whatever that means. I've taken a LOT of LSD in my day but that was the only time I had any kind of nausea and body element from it, and even the visuals were morning glory seed-like instead of LSD-like...whatever that is worth.
 
I would enjoy you personally making this. Even though we may disagree on the idea... You never approach anything half-assed, and regardless that your posts are always a mile long, they are always very informative.
 
Knowing I know 'nothing' I once got some LSD that I'd call 'dirty' under this context. It was oh 1994 I imagine.....it was definitely LSD-like..wasn't any kind of DOx and there were no NBOMEs back then. The trip had nausea and a distinct morning glory seed-like component to it. The gentleman I procured it from (who was my regular LSD source way back then) said it was 'old' whatever that means. I've taken a LOT of LSD in my day but that was the only time I had any kind of nausea and body element from it, and even the visuals were morning glory seed-like instead of LSD-like...whatever that is worth.

Not sure about the active dosage range of isolated LSA, but given it's chemical class wouldn't it be able to fit on blotter paper? Just the suggestion that it is "old" could have played it's part as well
 
I don't think it was lysergic acid amide...from all I read it won't even exist very long as an isolated compound on blotter, it seems more delicate than LSD itself.
 
Honestly, I'm not sure if an FAQ on a very likely nonexistent phenomenon is warranted.

ebola
 
Wouldn't the fact that it's brought up every single time someone has a bad experience warrant an FAQ?
 
Probably not....or definitely. Crazy dualist that MGS is.

People ascribe most of their life experiences to outside causes. They blame the drugs, or it was dirty acid, or it was "God" or that 'stupid motherfucker." Dirty acid (whatever that means) seems as fun to talk about as half the other topics in this forum.
 
I believed in the dirty acid thing for many years until I read this
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_article2.shtml

It's normal to question why 100 micrograms of something gives you muscle or stomach pain. I would say the question that hasn't been answered is if these side effects are real or just in your head. Someone should drop acid and take an MRI...
 
^The serotonin receptors are linked with vasoconstriction; nausea; body temperature and GI contraction, why wouldn't a potent and broad agonist of those receptors cause any of the aforementioned?
 
I would enjoy you personally making this. Even though we may disagree on the idea... You never approach anything half-assed, and regardless that your posts are always a mile long, they are always very informative.

Thank you, I take your kind words with sincere appreciation, all the more so because we DO disagree and yet you have the objectivity to respect your fellow man regardless of any differences of opinion. Maybe that seems like a no-brainer, as if surely most people – and likely an even higher percentage of people on Bluelight relative to the general population – are capable of disagreeing without regarding the person on the other side of the debate as stupid, foolish, and inferior. But unfortunately in my experience I have found that disagreements all too often will lead the participants to regard eachother with outright contempt, even here on Bluelight. So I commend you for being sensible in this regard.

I definitely do try to be respectful of other people's opinions, and I hope that comes through instead of getting 'lost in translation' via being posted on the Internet. And I try to always be thorough when I post, and try to give thoughtful input to threads. I know some of (Most of? Errr... Almost all of?) my posts are way too long for most people to bother to read, attention spans being apparently on the order of seconds, not minutes, but I think that's justifiable so long as you actually have something to say that'll take that much time and space to express, while avoiding unnecessary verbosity for the sake of.. I don't know, to try and look smart? Or something? Who knows...

I do wish to emphasize that when I said that the FAQ should explain and explore the various arguments both for and against the concept of dirty acid being a real thing, I meant it for real instead of just saying pretty things to try and look fair and impartial. So sure, there is no mistaking that I strenuously believe that any variation in the subjective experience on acid results from the inherently unpredictable nature of the compound itself, if I'm to compile a FAQ on the subject it would be purely a sham if I let that view dominate and told people who disagree to get bent. That's not how you synthesize the whole spectrum of views possessed by an entire community into a cohesive, inclusive document. Instead, that's how you alienate half the forum and start a flame war and end up with crap FAQ if you even manage to come up with anything at all.

Anyway, thanks again for the kind words, they're much appreciated and meaningful to me!
 
Thank you, I take your kind words with sincere appreciation, all the more so because we DO disagree and yet you have the objectivity to respect your fellow man regardless of any differences of opinion. Maybe that seems like a no-brainer, as if surely most people – and likely an even higher percentage of people on Bluelight relative to the general population – are capable of disagreeing without regarding the person on the other side of the debate as stupid, foolish, and inferior. But unfortunately in my experience I have found that disagreements all too often will lead the participants to regard eachother with outright contempt, even here on Bluelight. So I commend you for being sensible in this regard.

These words should be Biblical to BLers. If I were to print this out and read it often and apply it to my life outside 'bluelight' and MGS...my world would be a better place. We should all do this crazy ass MGS suggestion because that is a deep realization you just typed out for me, my friend. I hope we all remember to practice your realization and be that realization.
 
Not that I don't respect the opinions of others, but those that argue for dirty LSD often base that on experience rather than cold hard facts. How can you discriminate between what is actually real and what is not in those chases? Kind of hard to discredit (or prove) what an anonymous poster on the internet has done
 
Honestly, I'm not sure if an FAQ on a very likely nonexistent phenomenon is warranted.

ebola

That's the point though, to compile all of the evidence that there is no plausible mechanism for dirty acid to be an extant thing in one place, in a single thread. But accordingly I would have to be just as willing to accept well thought out theories about how it could be in fact a real phenomenon, and definitely would have to be open to actual evidence that it was a real thing.

Yes, the key is that arguments on BOTH sides will need to be either logically sound chains of deductive reasoning if those arguments are conjecture, or based on solid evidence if they are based on statements of fact. I predict that there will not be much that supports the existence of dirty acid that meets these criteria, since every time I've seen debates on this subject the proponents of that position refuse to even attempt to posit scientifically reasonable mechanisms for the existence of dirty acid, and all too often those Bluelighters that support the idea that dirty acid is real will basically make posts that boil down to 'I know I'm right that dirty acid exists because I know I'm right'. And yet despite all of this, it is not fair or reasonable for somebody editing such a FAQ to simply dismiss these people out of hand. That would defeat the whole purpose, preventing any sense of legitimacy as a *community-based* document.

Wouldn't the fact that it's brought up every single time someone has a bad experience warrant an FAQ?

Exactly! Right on the money.

The primary purpose of the document would be to weigh the evidence for and against, so that there's a single document where the argument is thoroughly explored, so that we could direct people to this thread if they wish to learn more about the issue.

There's a secondary purpose though too. This way, when threads about this subject come up, a mod could simply direct the participants to this thread and either lock threads devoted entirely to the subject or ask people to contain their debate to this FAQ thread and this FAQ thread only should there be other material in a thread besides that pertaining to dirty acid that would warrant keeping the thing open to replies.

Thus instead of having dirty acid threads popping up every few weeks since so many people are search-engine averse as far as finding a thread that already coincides with what they wish to post. To my eyes, in the process of repeatedly posting new topics on this old argument, people are cluttering up the forum with reiterations of the same damn argument time and time again while never bringing anything new to the discussion. The effect would be in line with that of big and dandies: instead of having numerous threads on the properties of a psychedelic, we use a single thread instead, where people can continue a long-running discussion without having each person with a question on that psychedelic drug posting reruns of the same questions every other day.

These words should be Biblical to BLers. If I were to print this out and read it often and apply it to my life outside 'bluelight' and MGS...my world would be a better place. We should all do this crazy ass MGS suggestion because that is a deep realization you just typed out for me, my friend. I hope we all remember to practice your realization and be that realization.

Aww, thanks MGS! You do bring up an important point though: this kind of attempt to override the natural human reaction to dissent – to refute the argument by unfortunately attacking the person on the other side of the debate – should not be limited to Internet forums. It should be used in real life to the utmost of all our abilities, because the idea of having a CIVIL debate escapes so many people these days, and sadly I'm sure we can all recall instances where we too have mistakenly fallen into that sort of trap.

Not that I don't respect the opinions of others, but those that argue for dirty LSD often base that on experience rather than cold hard facts. How can you discriminate between what is actually real and what is not in those chases? Kind of hard to discredit (or prove) what an anonymous poster on the internet has done

And this is why you would need to solidly support your opinion with deductive reasoning if you're posting conjecture, on either side of the argument, and preferably support your position with actual evidence. If any of the conjectural posts are included in the FAQ I would suggest that I add a disclaimer that the information is in fact conjecture.

But this must apply to the anti-dirty acid position just as thoroughly.
 
Not sure about the active dosage range of isolated LSA, but given it's chemical class wouldn't it be able to fit on blotter paper

Possibly, I guess if people can get active alprazolam doses on paper you should be able to get pure crystalline LSA on paper... but if you have the ability/supplies to make pure Crystalline LSA you can most likely make more impressive things.

According to Erowid:
Dosage of LSA is not well established since few have experimented with the pure chemical and recorded their experiences publicly. Albert Hofmann tried an I.M. injection of 500 micrograms of LSA and found the effects medium-strong. Hofmann later reports the active oral dose of LSA at "2 to 5 milligrams".

Personally I hate the word 'dirty acid'

Right now actual 'dirty' acid is 1% of the problem and Substances being passed off as acid is the other 99% of the problem which is already actively being taken care of here on bluelight.

Now adays you get one of three things:
1.Pure LSD-25 95-100% Pure Laid on Blotter, in Liquid form, possibly Microdot, and obviously pure crystalline.
2.Cut street LSD - As stupid as this sounds it is common and it is simple get your hands on some pure liquid and add a few drops of distilled water, then either pass off as liquid or even lay this on watercolor #14.
3.A substance similar to LSD-25 However NOT LSD-25 This can be a vast array of things including LSZ, ALD-52, Nbomes etc... ( I dont know how common LSZ would ever be just an example )

I do not believe people receive actual dirty LSD-25 on the street.

Anymore that is, the past was a different story, there were more chemist's, more dealers and more LSD-25 Back then.... However the purest can still be easily found on the street this would be needlepoint ( which is refined fluff crystal ) or something similar if it exists which im sure it does across the ocean.

From reading the very common how to lay LSD thread on another forum, we learn there was some bad crystal in the Past, Champagne and Tornado Juice, Where one of the largest distributors to ever come online tells us his experience with these crystals, which I would relate to 'dirty', however I have never seen these on the street Im guessing those chemist's are long gone.

I say I do not like the word dirty acid, because when I hear people on the street say, " ( He / she / I ) received 'dirty acid' that is in fact false, the correct thing to say would be I received a substance that was not LSD-25.
 
Possibly, I guess if people can get active alprazolam doses on paper you should be able to get pure crystalline LSA on paper... but if you have the ability/supplies to make pure Crystalline LSA you can most likely make more impressive things.

Alprazolam blotter?!? *head explodes, showering the entire forum with slimy brain bits*

But to speak seriously though, when did this happen, and how did we find out about and confirm it as having really happened? Do understand I'm not calling you a liar or telling you your talking bullshit, I just never heard of anything like this and it very much piqued my interest!

Not to get TOO far off topic, I always wondered about using blotter to dose one's self with fentanyl, or more sensibly something like sufentanil, carfentanil, or mefentanil, one of fentanyl's ridiculously potent analogues. For snybody who doesn't know, these analogues are potent to the point of being usable as a chemical warfare agent / non-lethal chemical weapon (in theory, in practice is another matter, see Russian theater hostage crisis on wikiP for an example). So considering their absurd potency, or even the potency of fentanyl itself, blotter could be dosed so that a blotter would contain enough to get an opiate naive person a little high, two hits would get the opiate naive person super high, and then those of us with tolerance would take a fair amount of the blotters. The point though would be to use blotters with identical doses per hit, so as to circumvent the unpredictable dosing that can stem from trying to abuse a lollipop or a patch, allowing people to perfectly titrate their dose, and it would also be a much more convenient method of administration, not to mention nicely surreptitious!

Right now actual 'dirty' acid is 1% of the problem and Substances being passed off as acid is the other 99% of the problem which is already actively being taken care of here on bluelight.

I dunno dude, while I disagree with people who believe in dirty acid, and I find their arguments in favor of that position to be often incredibly weak due to a seeming reluctance to even attempt to use deductive reasoning to postulate a mechanism by which acid could be dirty or clean, I do believe that they are for the most part still intelligent, well-informed Bluelighters, who could tell if they were sold an NBOMe or DOX compound as LSD. And so I think that they are simply confusing the widely variable effects on the body and mind both that acid is notorious for – and/or confusing acid's propensity for promoting psychosomatic symptoms – with the idea that the acid itself is somehow dirty or impure. If they, or anybody who has any experience with acid, gets sold something else on blotter and they take it, I'm pretty positive that there is no way that they could confuse it with LSD that's simply contaminated, impure, and thus 'dirty'.

Now adays you get one of three things:
1.Pure LSD-25 95-100% Pure Laid on Blotter, in Liquid form, possibly Microdot, and obviously pure crystalline.
2.Cut street LSD - As stupid as this sounds it is common and it is simple get your hands on some pure liquid and add a few drops of distilled water, then either pass off as liquid or even lay this on watercolor #14.
3.A substance similar to LSD-25 However NOT LSD-25 This can be a vast array of things including LSZ, ALD-52, Nbomes etc... ( I dont know how common LSZ would ever be just an example )

While its true that AL-LAD has been circulating recently within certain circles on the online RC scene, it's not really regularly synthesized to the best of anybody's knowledge. Some of the testing outfits – analogous to DanceSafe but for acid – test blotters frequently, and they have found that if there are non-LSD ergoloids circulating in the market they are so rare as to be virtually nonexistent for the general drug-using black market.

ALD-52 and LSZ have pretty much never been on the market at all, even in those certain circles within the online RC scene. There was a rumor that LSZ may make an appearance after AL-LAD, but that's just hypothetical conjecture for the moment I believe. And as I mentioned the NBOMes are different enough from acid that I don't think the two could be confused by anybody who has tried either an NBOMe, or acid, or both.
 
Last edited:
Right now actual 'dirty' acid is 1% of the problem and Substances being passed off as acid is the other 99% of the problem which is already actively being taken care of here on bluelight.
-------

Wait what percent of the problems are just from LSD? What percent of the problem is kids who took LSD and thought it was something else because they don't know any better and didn't test? All the problems with a trip are just RC's now? LSD doesn't cause any problems and if you had any it must be an RC? I never really noticed until a mod here pointed it out, LSD has an almost mythical status among young people where its all great and nothing can go wrong. People have a bad time and of course it must be something else that did it because acid is perfect. Sorry 99 percent of the problems with acid are not RC related, I disagree.
 
Alprazolam blotter?!? *head explodes, showering the entire forum with slimy brain bits*

But to speak seriously though, when did this happen, and how did we find out about and confirm it as having really happened? Do understand I'm not calling you a liar or telling you your talking bullshit, I just never heard of anything like this and it very much piqued my interest!

It happens. Pure alprazolam can be kinda dangerous to have, especially if you're all faded out and continue dosing..etc. Liquid is a safe way to distribute it, but laying it on blotter you get the dose regulation safety along with street safety. I had friends to get already laid blotter with alprazolam, and they attempted this themselves. They were doing it for fun, not to sell, so it was more practical to just keep it simple in a solution. I don't know what solution it would require though, much less the absorbency, and seeing how it was almost ten years ago, I wouldn't be able to specify the dimensions of each "hit." Fentanyl is already rather potent, and I'm just assuming it's water soluble from the opiates I am familiar with being extremely so.

Not even to the first page, and I'm already trying to keep this train from going off the rails:)
 
Top