Dirty Acid FAQ & Discussion

[Deinonychus]

Tried to clean up this thread, some posts were very borderline and at times I edited out the rotten and off-topic parts. I really don't care if you think the moderating was fair, if you fail to make posts that are less than 10% of a contributing value it is your own responsibility and it may be effectively hidden/removed or edited.

If a discussion stalls it really doesn't help to reflect on that uselessly.

Hmm. Dunno if this is for me or in general, i'd hope in general since I'd hope I've contributed more than ten percent value, but as I'd just made critical comments about moderation on Bluelight, I'm not sure. Perhaps I should explain better what I meant, and surely I don't actually dispute that cleaning out the thread is needed, if thats the impression you got.

My comment was directed to it'sALLfake, because he was less than thrilled that Sekio – being in theory 'authoritative' – made a fact-ish sounding statement that dirty acid is a figment of human imprecision and variability. My point was simply that mods here do that sort of statement as fact thing a lot, amongst a few other disagreements I have with what seems to be the purposefully coordinated tone of the moderation on the whole site. It is a touch too authoritarian and occasionally harsh and often too impersonal for my tastes you see.

Perhaps this is necessary with so large a site, and surely there will inevitably be difficulties because moderators are members of the forum too and doubtless wish to engage in debate and discussion without inviting chaos for a visit by visibly relinquishing any power in order to converse on a level playing field. Those things are complicating factors to me to be sure, but ultimately I am of the opinion that the sometimes totalitarian flavors are not necessary to such a degree. But in this scheme of things, my point was that the post it'sALLfake took issue with was really quite tame as far as throwing one's weight around as an authority who is also participating in a discussion.

I brought up fairness in moderating, but I wasn't talking about getting my posts pruned, if this comment was in actuality directed at me, as I'm not sure if it was. Instead I was talking in general terms, but this is a perfect example of what I was talking about: doing what you just did – pruning – is in my eyes the ideal for how a moderator works, whereas shutting down a thread like was threatened instead due to ease of doing so is not the ideal.

To compare with what I mean about authoritarian tendencies, this is a properly modulated response, whereas shutting the whole damn thread down would be overly authoritarian for my tastes. You hadn't actually pruned this thread yet when I made that post, so I was speaking in more general terms. Then again you could be talking to somebody else entirely as mentioned.

As far as pruning vs locking a thread goes in practice rather than in theory, I totally get that moderators are above all else volunteers. So real life time constraints are in play in a major way. But all the same I should hope that instead of doing the easy, fast thing, a moderator would wait until they did have the time, and then do the right thing instead of the fast and easy thing, right being in my opinion keeping a thread alive if it has value. Two people that can't get along shouldn't deprive everybody else of a venue for discussion just because that's the quick fix in other words.

Anyway it doesn't really matter since it did get pruned instead of locked, so thanks for taking the time to do it right instead of doing it quick.

Fortunately the fundamental idea behind the thread is a perennial topic and it seems valuable to continue working on piecing together that FAQ. I will try to help with that.
For me the subject is not 100% finished even if I swung over to the side that thinks that subjectively experiencing the quality of LSD is for the most part an illusion. I am not willing to put to rest the possibility that impurities that are inactive by themselves may be of influence on the complex pharmacology of LSD itself. The term 'modulation' was used for this.
It would have been great if there was more comment on that but I guess it is not surprising since no decently scientific minded person would claim that it is 100% impossible, and there is no empirical data to help us. So many stay silent and prefer to echo for the millionth time a conclusion that others have established using their own reasoning.
What would be necessary is a double blind large scale study where LSD together with different synthesis impurities (each separately purified on their own) are administered. Which is pretty unrealistic to happen, especially if the only application is the main Q in our FAQ.

Even if the great variance in physical effects from LSD accounts for somewhere between 90 and 100 % of the subjective experience of dirty or clean effects, it remains IMO possible that the remaining influence comes from impurities.
It is a form of wishful thinking or a form of inability to let go of wanting a more tangible cause, but at the same time I would personally feel scientifically incorrect to not even consider that option possible given what we know and don't know.

If LSD has such a great range (or variance) it is still possible IMO that this range is skewed by different batches. But if there are many factors the purity definitely doesn't seem like a deciding factor to me.

Right-o, this is on the mark. Since I haven't gotten feedback on any of the FAQ bits (no, I'm not whining, just stating the facts. FAQts, actually) would it trouble you to look over the most recent one, the one that gets at the question of what properties a contaminant would need? I'm really not wanting my bias on the subject to spoil my contribution to the FAQ, so I tried to be explicit that there could be an as of yet undiscovered ergoloid that is responsible, or a sub-active dose of a contaminant might be enough to color the experience, etc. but I'm just not sure that I included enough caveats to the text so as to be clear that there is still a possibility, however unlikely, of it being a real phenomenon, since we lack definitive scientific data on the subject.

On the other hand I don't want to go too far with the caveats. But considering that I'm biased against dirty acid rather than for it, that's the form of bias I would be most concerned about, so I would like to make sure that I made the chance of the phenomenon being real explicitly enough. I also am writing up a piece on how ergoloids work their side-effecty magic, so as to speculate how an ergoloid contaminant could cause the dirty acid syndrome side effect set, while also being clear that it is pure speculation, and that LSD is an ergoloid itself, so it would be very difficult to determine whether acid itself or some unknown ergoloid would be responsible for the syndrome.

Anyway if you're too busy that's cool, would just prefer somebody with an eye for the unconfirmed nature of the argument in either direction take a look and make sure my bias isn't showing!

Since LSD and iso-LSD are diastereomers, not enantiomers, the equilibrium concentration ratio does not have to be 1.

Hmm. As far as I know enantiomers by definition cannot interconvert at all; if they did they wouldn't be enantiomers, since enantiomers require a symmetry reversal. So in the case of acid, (+)-LSD and (–)-LSD are enantiomers, and (+)-iso-LSD and (–)-iso-LSD are enantiomers, and the (+) form of each cannot interconvert at all to the (–) form.

I am not sure how (+)-LSD and (+)-iso-LSD interconvert though. These two are *not* enantiomers, just as you stated. However they do have a difference in one of there stereogenic centers, the 8-carbon stereocenter, where the hydrogen or the carbon of the amide can apparently switch orientations. I would hypothesize however than since the ring where the 8-carbon is located is *not* aromatic, the substituents that project from that 8-carbon in that ring could then rotate freely, or at least can actually rotate even if there's a low energy barrier to it. A 90 degree rotation would bring the amide's carbon and the hydrogen into opposite orientations than they had previously held, and since the carbon that hosts the amide ketone can also freely rotate, the 90 degree rotation around the point that is the 8-carbon wouldn't affect the amine's orientation much since it would be rotating around all the time anyway.

You're also correct that the interconversion of the (+) forms of LSD and iso-LSD respectively need not have an equilibrium of 1:1. If there was one orientation that was more energetically favorable, either because that orientation is inherently more favorable as a ground state, or because the energy barrier to rotation was more favorable in one direction that the other even if the resulting states themselves were equally favorable energetically, we would indeed see a value for the equilibrium that diverged from 1. But in that event we would eventually see almost the acid turn to either d-LSD or iso-LSD, and since this interconversion doesn't require light (in contrast to the irreversible change to lumi-LSD does require light) then you'd expect that equilibrium shift to happen even in the proverbial 'time-capsule' LSD, that being the Sandoz product somebody apparently stashed away for half a century in the dark and cold.

The cold would slow down interconversion as it slows any chemical reaction, but there should still be noticeable change in the potency due to an equilibrium constant in either direction that deviates from 1:1 for a half-century old bottle. But when it was tried out, it was apparently just the same as the day it was made. This leads me to believe that the interconversion from (+)-LSD to (+)-iso-LSD and back again has a ratio of 1:1 (and the same reaction between (–)-LSD and (–)-iso-LSD would also have a similar ratio, though there shouldn't be any (–) in play due to synthetic precursors lacking that pair of enantiomers, and wouldn't matter anyway since both are inactive). This is basically inference since acid that is stored properly doesn't turn to either almost all d-LSD or almost all iso-LSD even over 50 years, in summary.

Curiously but sensibly (digressing but still on the topic of chirality and interconversion), the totally chemistry-beginner (I could myself amongst this group) would consider that nitrogen, perhaps as an amine, would be capable of producing a chiral center, since it too has tetrahedral form like carbon. And the answer lies in that one of the 'points' of the tetrahedron is occupied by nitrogen's lone pair electrons. Since these electrons aren't being shared in a bond with anything, they 'orbit' the nucleus freely... except that remember, electrons don't *really* orbit a nucleus like planets, this is just an abstraction, and in reality they occupy *orbitals*, which are essentially probabilistic functions of where the electrons are likely to be found at any given time. So as a result they can 'jump' around the nucleus (there is no jumping, they are just varyingly likely to be found at a given place in one part of the orbital as the other, and relative locations of the three actual bonds the nitrogen has do not stop this probabilistic 'movement') allowing the other three bonds to change their absolute orientations to one another. This is why enantiomers amines do not exist: they interconvert with themselves constantly, so even an isolated sample of a given enantiomer if such a thing were to simply pop into being as a pure thing, it would rapidly (not sure how fast but is assume super fucking almost instantly fast) become racemic due to the lone pair electrons wandering around the nucleus.

EDIT: Also, thanks for the list Sekio, I guess I've got a bunch more reading to do. I knew how broad the binding affinity for acid was – serotonin, dopamine, adrenaline receptors of many subtypes – but I guess for some reason I thought it was atypical in this regard. I guess not! Thinking back on that reasoning now I can't figure out why is make such a weird, perverse assumption. Oh well, tis to be human, and I'm off to google around on receptor subtypes then!

 

[tryp2fun]

Hmm. As far as I know enantiomers by definition cannot interconvert at all; if they did they wouldn't be enantiomers, since enantiomers require a symmetry reversal. So in the case of acid, (+)-LSD and (–)-LSD are enantiomers, and (+)-iso-LSD and (–)-iso-LSD are enantiomers, and the (+) form of each cannot interconvert at all to the (–) form.

I am not sure how (+)-LSD and (+)-iso-LSD interconvert though. These two are *not* enantiomers, just as you stated. However they do have a difference in one of there stereogenic centers, the 8-carbon stereocenter, where the hydrogen or the carbon of the amide can apparently switch orientations. I would hypothesize however than since the ring where the 8-carbon is located is *not* aromatic, the substituents that project from that 8-carbon in that ring could then rotate freely, or at least can actually rotate even if there's a low energy barrier to it. A 90 degree rotation would bring the amide's carbon and the hydrogen into opposite orientations than they had previously held, and since the carbon that hosts the amide ketone can also freely rotate, the 90 degree rotation around the point that is the 8-carbon wouldn't affect the amine's orientation much since it would be rotating around all the time anyway.

You're also correct that the interconversion of the (+) forms of LSD and iso-LSD respectively need not have an equilibrium of 1:1. If there was one orientation that was more energetically favorable, either because that orientation is inherently more favorable as a ground state, or because the energy barrier to rotation was more favorable in one direction that the other even if the resulting states themselves were equally favorable energetically, we would indeed see a value for the equilibrium that diverged from 1. But in that event we would eventually see almost the acid turn to either d-LSD or iso-LSD, and since this interconversion doesn't require light (in contrast to the irreversible change to lumi-LSD does require light) then you'd expect that equilibrium shift to happen even in the proverbial 'time-capsule' LSD, that being the Sandoz product somebody apparently stashed away for half a century in the dark and cold.

The cold would slow down interconversion as it slows any chemical reaction, but there should still be noticeable change in the potency due to an equilibrium constant in either direction that deviates from 1:1 for a half-century old bottle. But when it was tried out, it was apparently just the same as the day it was made. This leads me to believe that the interconversion from (+)-LSD to (+)-iso-LSD and back again has a ratio of 1:1 (and the same reaction between (–)-LSD and (–)-iso-LSD would also have a similar ratio, though there shouldn't be any (–) in play due to synthetic precursors lacking that pair of enantiomers, and wouldn't matter anyway since both are inactive). This is basically inference since acid that is stored properly doesn't turn to either almost all d-LSD or almost all iso-LSD even over 50 years, in summary.

Curiously but sensibly (digressing but still on the topic of chirality and interconversion), the totally chemistry-beginner (I could myself amongst this group) would consider that nitrogen, perhaps as an amine, would be capable of producing a chiral center, since it too has tetrahedral form like carbon. And the answer lies in that one of the 'points' of the tetrahedron is occupied by nitrogen's lone pair electrons. Since these electrons aren't being shared in a bond with anything, they 'orbit' the nucleus freely... except that remember, electrons don't *really* orbit a nucleus like planets, this is just an abstraction, and in reality they occupy *orbitals*, which are essentially probabilistic functions of where the electrons are likely to be found at any given time. So as a result they can 'jump' around the nucleus (there is no jumping, they are just varyingly likely to be found at a given place in one part of the orbital as the other, and relative locations of the three actual bonds the nitrogen has do not stop this probabilistic 'movement') allowing the other three bonds to change their absolute orientations to one another. This is why enantiomers amines do not exist: they interconvert with themselves constantly, so even an isolated sample of a given enantiomer if such a thing were to simply pop into being as a pure thing, it would rapidly (not sure how fast but is assume super fucking almost instantly fast) become racemic due to the lone pair electrons wandering around the nucleus.

Enantiomers interconvert (the process is called racemization for enantiomers) easily in some cases, not so easily in other. The 8-position in lysergic acid can readily interconvert (this is called epimerization for diastereomers) because it is relatively easily deprotonated, since the carbanion is stabilized by resonance with the carbonyl and the adjacent double bond. When it reprotonates, it may do it from either face, giving either lysergic acid or isolysergic acid. Thus, heat up lysergic acid or derivatives with base, and viola, a mixture of diastereomers will result. However, in the case of lysergic acid and derivatives, the carboxyl is pseudoequatorial, and in isolysergic acid it is pseudoaxial. The two molecules do not have the same energy, so the equilibrium constant is not 1, it favors lysergic acid to a small extent. For LSD, the equilibrium ratio is 9:1, corresponding to an energy difference of 1.3 kcal/mol (http://jat.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/6/492.full.pdf). Since lysergic acid has two chirality centers, racemization would require inversion at both centers, and the 5-position is not easily deprotonated, since there is no resonance stabilization of the carbanion. As for chiral nitrogen compounds, the lone pair normally has a low inversion barrier, so they racemize very rapidly at room temperature. This is because the electron pair in an sp3 orbital can easily rehybridize to a p orbital, giving a trigonal planar geometry for the substituents, and back. You could theoretically freeze out teriary amine enantiomers at very low temperatures. Quaternary nitrogen compounds, with 4 different alkyl substituents, can certainly be chiral and isolated in optically active form. It is interesting that sulfur compounds with 3 substitutents and a lone pair are chiral, and they are easily isolated in optically active form. The inversion barrier for sulfur compounds is high enough that they racemize at around 180-200 C.

 

['medicine cabinet']

its strychnine dude! its ends up in your spine and gives you flashbacks!

haha....

ive always wondered about the whole dirty acid thing myself, not being into psychs and only having tried a half a hit of LSD (hardly any effect) i wondered how something so small could be adulterated unless it was a different substance all together.

what about the tornada juice stuff? like the low grade poorly synthed acid ive read about? could that be the culprit. it always intrigued me that shulgin said pure crystaline LSD in a vial when shaken in the dark will produce small flecks of light. thats pretty amazing.

 

[Ismene]

If you took "dirty acid" beside a beautiful swiss waterfall on a summers day would you still have a dirty trip?

If you took "clean acid" in a filthy hovel surrounded by shitten underpants and a big log floating in the toilet, would you still have a "clean trip"?

 

[Transform]

If you took "dirty acid" beside a beautiful swiss waterfall on a summers day would you still have a dirty trip?

If you took "clean acid" in a filthy hovel surrounded by shitten underpants and a big log floating in the toilet, would you still have a "clean trip"?

Pretty much my thoughts on the matter. Any subtleties introduced by minor impurities will be smothered by the fact that miniscule changes in set or setting can have a huge impact on the experience.

 

[Reverend Random]

Any subtleties introduced by minor impurities will be smothered by the fact that minuscule changes in set or setting can have a huge impact on the experience.

And that also happens to be my opinion. Even if other substances do influence the acid experience, I am convinced that people don't give enough credit to all the countless variables summarized by 'set' and 'setting'. I am convinced that these make a much bigger impression on your experience than anything else.

Still, though, intriguing topic (both in the subject as in the thread sense of the word).

 

[itsALLfake]

If you took "dirty acid" beside a beautiful swiss waterfall on a summers day would you still have a dirty trip?

If you took "clean acid" in a filthy hovel surrounded by shitten underpants and a big log floating in the toilet, would you still have a "clean trip"?

You'd still see the beauty in both scenarios..

 

[Deinonychus]

Okay, so since this thread has run it's course shall we finish up the FAQ then? I've still yet to get any feedback on the bits that I've written, you can find the three pieces so far here, here, and here, if you want to take a look and give a critique. Otherwise I'll get in touch with Solipsis about putting the second and third pieces into the initial post.

I've got another section about half done, will put it up when I'm done.

 

[Livinginthealps]

Well personally i don't think we have reached a definitive answer. I think before an FAQ is made a sticky it should be 100% fact. This debate will never really end until there is some more research done on LSD and impurities. But, hey thats just my opinion. You are free to do as you please.

But, this is from a erowid document I was looking at.

"The various ergot compounds, cycloalkamides of LSD and lumi-LSD plug into the same receptor sites as LSD does. But these compounds evidently don't turn the lock in the smooth, clean manner of LSD. Many of these compounds have effects similar to symptoms of ergot poisoning - the St. Anthony's Fire of the Middle Ages. These symptoms include inflamed joints, headaches, nausea, and hot and cold flashes.

Isomers of LSD are another possible contaminant and indeed are reported present by the drug analysis groups. There are four possible isomers of LSD, but only the d-lysergic acid diethyl amide form is active. The other rotation forms - l-lysergic acid diethyl amide, d and l iso-lysergic acid diethyl amide (contrary to recent reports!) - are inactive. they have no pharmacological role, except possibly as a catalyst for some latent effect of LSD, or to block the action of LSD at the receptor site.

If a contaminated batch of diethyl amine is used in the manufacturing process, or if the chemist purposely decides to make them, LSD homologues might be present in the final crystal. Molecules similar to LSD in structure but with some addition, subtraction or rearrangement of action, homologues plug into the same keyhole that LSD does.

Some of these homologues have profound effects that vary in course of action and potency. For example, the strongest of he homologues, ALD-52, has 91 percent the potency of LSD and is said to have a slightly different effect upon the mind (there is some dispute about this).

However, as Albert Hofmann puts it in "Drugs Affecting the Central Nervous System": LSD has the highest and most specific effect and may therefore be considered as the genuine prototype of psychotomimetic compounds."

Thus, all impurities found in LSD are like imperfect keys. Such substances as ergot alkaloids, cycloalkamides and other lysergic acid derivatives, and LSD homologues and lumi-LSD are drugs that might open the door part way. But only pure LSD opens the doors of perception all the way."

 

[Ismene]

Now we have a couple of "analogues" of LSD - like LAD and LSZ tho I think it's pretty clear they're pretty noticeabley different from LSD and wouldn't create a "dirty trip".

 

[Deinonychus]

Mm. I don't know how well I like the idea of waiting for 'objective truth'. Dismissing the wank-off argument that nothing is ever '100% fact' scientifically speaking, because that would be a cop out here and would not address your point, I say if you don't think the caveats I've written in go far enough then write up your own position, based off what you just posted if you want. I'm writing up the possibly last piece on what an ergoloid contaminant would look like and where it would come from now, but that by no means precludes further input. In fact since the beginning I've been saying somebody from the other side of the argument should take it on themselves to encapsulate their position, and while I would sooner merge the two documents into one Solipsis suggested keeping the two positions separate. I fear that may ensure people support their position by reading the agreeing portion only, cognitive bias-like, but I don't really care too much whether or not it's all in one of not.

So yeah long point short, if you don't think the caveats to far enough, by all means to have at it. You're articulate, I don't see quality issues here, so I don't see any reason not to assuming you have the time or willpower.

 

[ungelesene_bettlek]

which of the four stereoisomers of lysergic acid actually occur in its natural sources (ergot, convolvulaceae, stipa robusta)?

 

[jason7]

I don't know what the cause is, but when I used to do a lot of acid I could definitely tell differences in the trips. Some types would give me nice clearly resolved visuals and others would be more muddy, if you will. Don't know why. Maybe some had additives, who knows. I used to like the little tiny grey ones and orange ones. The flat yellow tabs and green tabs were also nice. Also the medium small purple tabs with the convex surfaces were great. I would crush the tabs up and snort it. Much faster onset. No burn or anything. It worked great. Get high in like 10-15 minutes, as I recall. I know it was a lot faster than oral, and no "acid indigestion" if you know what I mean. This was back in the 80s so my recall is not all that great.

I also remember that if I took 4 hits I would see a lot of fine lines in the air but then if I smoked Cannabis products the lines would get a lot more dense, meaning just huge amounts of lines filling the entire field of view in 3D, like the room was full of it. But if I drank a beer the visuals would get blurry and take on a "wet" quality. Alcohol really messes up LSD visuals, at least for me, while Cannabis makes them more severe.

 

[Deinonychus]

which of the four stereoisomers of lysergic acid actually occur in its natural sources (ergot, convolvulaceae, stipa robusta)?

(+) isomers only, for example in ergotamine you have the d and iso forms, but both are (+) optically.

 

[ungelesene_bettlek]

(+) isomers only, for example in ergotamine you have the d and iso forms, but both are (+) optically.

thanks a lot for the fast anser!

when one looks at the legit medications based on ergot alakaloids, which stereoisomers are used there? always the same the same as (+)-LSD?

so when producing such medications, does one have to separate the two naturally occuring isomers at some point? or is there a way to isomerize (+)-iso-lysergic acid to (+)-lysergig acid?

 

[itsALLfake]

Why don't we clear up that 'dirty acid' isn't a reflection on what you can experience. The word dirty gets thrown around too much with LSD, but I do believe it does play a factor in to what you feel. It doesn't necessarily play a role in the psychedelic phenomenon, but it is negative physical side-effects not fully associated with LSD. The intense diaphragm discomfort is one thing I've noticed from certain batches. Throwing up, the weird feeling in your blood, and several others are going to be hard to pin-point to being an actual chemical reaction, since they are subjective to just being due to your state of health and perhaps nothing more.

Deino-I have some time this weekend to dive in to what you've got down so far. I'll give you my 2 cents if you want to send me what you have. If it won't PM, I'll give you my e-mail. Thanks for staying subjective on this.

 

[Deinonychus]

thanks a lot for the fast anser!

when one looks at the legit medications based on ergot alakaloids, which stereoisomers are used there? always the same the same as (+)-LSD?

so when producing such medications, does one have to separate the two naturally occuring isomers at some point? or is there a way to isomerize (+)-iso-lysergic acid to (+)-lysergig acid?

Hell, I wish I knew about ergotamine tablets! I've been looking and looking to find out, I'm assuming the ergotamine is extracted from plants as that total synth would be a bitch, but I haven't found any actual information as to the for sure answer. Googling 'is cafergot racemic' yields *the* weirdest shit of all time:

"Matters were usually noted for comedy health; the racemic tablets cafergot 100 mg and alternate years ..."
"Cafergot Drug Prices. The racemic relationship side promotes to its meat as a appropriate time, and is..."
"Apr 25, 2011 - If a cafergot generic india is racemic, he will examine his cultivation and produce his ..."

All of these turn up in the text preview part of the google listings for the first page. I haven't bothered clicking any of the links but most seem to be badly translated foreign websites trying to sell (possibly fake) cafergot, or something, I dunno what! Google it yourself and have a looksee!

As for interconversion between isomers, for LSD, the (+)-forms of d-LSD and iso-LSD actually interconvert of their own accord! This stereocenter is the 8-carbon. However, (+) and (-) forms will not interconvert. You can see what I mean the easiest with this picture:

So that's LSD. I can't speak for ergotamine or lysergic acid, but they both possess both the 5 (+ versus - isomers) and 8 (d- versus iso- isomers) carbons in the same place as LSD, so I imagine that they will interconvert within the (+) and (-) sets, but not between (+) and (-) themselves. I'm not sure what sort of isomer-resolving process is used for LSD should one want to synth (+)-d-LSD alone, and none of the other three isomers, and even if I did we couldn't talk about it here. Some sort of complementary salt where the anion is chiral itself is usually used to resolve chiral cations (such as PEAs) if I recall correctly.

Why don't we clear up that 'dirty acid' isn't a reflection on what you can experience. The word dirty gets thrown around too much with LSD, but I do believe it does play a factor in to what you feel. It doesn't necessarily play a role in the psychedelic phenomenon, but it is negative physical side-effects not fully associated with LSD. The intense diaphragm discomfort is one thing I've noticed from certain batches. Throwing up, the weird feeling in your blood, and several others are going to be hard to pin-point to being an actual chemical reaction, since they are subjective to just being due to your state of health and perhaps nothing more.

Deino-I have some time this weekend to dive in to what you've got down so far. I'll give you my 2 cents if you want to send me what you have. If it won't PM, I'll give you my e-mail. Thanks for staying subjective on this.

Cool, awesome, sounds great, lookin forward to what you have to say! As for trying to not be biased, hah well, lets wait and see, that's what I want it looked over for is just in case the sneaky bias snuck in!

Speaking generally, I'm not trying to harp on about getting people to read and comment on the various sections. I'm just trying to ensure nobody thinks that it's biased after the fact since I do hold a position on the issue, and also trying to push it towards being a document for the community that is as much as possible by the community. Since I've written it all (as said, people are welcome to write their own pieces, especially pro-dirt people) the best way to still give it at least the most honest impression of being a community thing is to have people read it and make their complaints now as opposed to later after I ask Solipsis to give it his once-over (always good to have an editor!) finalize it.

 

[my3rdeye]

The Swiss bliss I eat has never caused a single maladie in anyone. Everytime someone ate the champagne and myself, or someone ate it not by my friends (same L, seed of life hunab ku) (which I dont even eat/feed to people anymore), they always reported the same negative side effects. Say this is mental, subjective, set and setting dependent... but we are talking in the hundreds and hundreds of people here. maybe we're working on empirical evidence, but it's more solid then speculation.

You can build a hierarchy, akin to chinacats, of what's around right now in cleanliness.

Swiss Bliss (WoW, kesey prints, dalai llamas)
white xtal from amsterdam
white fluff domestic (wow) (on par with white from amsterdam)
Czech xtal (wow, many other euro prints too)
euro silver (shivas, ganeshas)
blue (some call it rose, was also going around on canadian prints, better of the two batches)
lavender (nice purple crystal floating round from eugene, liquid usually)
champagne (mostly going around on canadian prints, a la hunab ku)


there are a few smaller batches of stuff going around thats not factored in because its not publicly available (super clean white fluff, smaller boutique batches coming out of north california). then of course there's some legacy crystal like the clear that was going around on tye dye prints (90s l) and of course more legacy smaller batches.. but that mainly covers it.

-------


Wow thats total nonsense. Canadian LSD including hunab kus are some of the best tabs on the planet there are no side effects from them at all. And you cannot tell the difference between eurotabs, well except Canadian ones are usually better. That's all you can tell roughly how many micrograms it is. You and you friends are terrible judges of LSD. There are 50 pages of happy customers in the acid in Canada thread in North america section. You belive a load on nosense about where it comes from (like swizterland) and spout off crap some dealer told you about the crystal. And then post it online as fact.

 

[Folley]

^ how do you know you're not just having an amazing trip on low quality gear?



this kind of discussion can go on forever and no one will give up their side. We've had the same discussion in ED over MDMA as well, trying to gauge purity from how good of a trip you had on a drug isn't going to get anyone anywhere. Unless someone here has a GC/MS, wants to test several different types of LSD and do a double blind test on a large group of volunteers, I don't think this kind of talk is going to go anywhere but in more circles

 

[ungelesene_bettlek]

thank you a lot for the extensive answer, Deinonychus!

I'm assuming the ergotamine is extracted from plants as that total synth would be a bitch, but I haven't found any actual information as to the for sure answer.

according to the german speaking wikipedia, saprophytic in-vitro cultivations of claviceps purpurea is the usual source for ergot alkaloids today. the following article is quoted as source:
Zdeněk Malinka Saphrophytic Cultivation of Claviceps. In: Ergot: The Genus Claviceps (en), Ladislav Cvak, Harwood Academic, 1999, ISBN 9789057023750, S. 321-372.

Some sort of complementary salt where the anion is chiral itself is usually used to resolve chiral cations (such as PEAs) if I recall correctly.

I always thought that precisely this is the reason why lysergig acid amides usually are in the form of the tartate salt? does your hesitation imply that this is an oversimplified explanation?