Dyed Liquid Owsley LSD?

[thehaight954]

Owsley died a few weeks ago if you guys dint know. Also thats a marketing pitch dont be so gullible.

 

[PROZ4C]

i don't doubt what you say in the least bit. set/setting is all-important and can convince someone of even the "purest" LSD that it's dirty garbage. i think there are multiple sides to this coin. i'm personally a believer of LSD differing depending upon content of impurities. there's an LSD analogue thread around here that goes into great detail about LSD analogues and many of them are active in the ug range same as LSD. i won't argue one way or another because neither of us have the tools to pursue an actual answer to this question. we need access to analytical equipment and a considerable amount of LSD. so until we can begin to analyze samples coupled with trip reports from those sample batches, it will remain a mystery. it makes for an interesting discussion but until gc/ms is involved it will just be "around and around we go" unfortunately

Set and setting = huge factors but what you said is correct beyond any doubt in my opinion...

My pet monkey has created what is essentially one step away from final product LSD but him lacking skills and equipment to perform proper chromatography (or rumored reagents that could be used instead) he is always left with a medley of various stereo-isomers of LSD

My monkey can produce his own little batch of:
(+)-LSD
(+)-iso-LSD (THE ONLY PSYCHOACTIVE STERIOISOMER)
(-)-LSD
(-)-iso-LSD

My wishful thinking pet thought he could simply use the above and use stoichiometric coefficients to calculate (+)-iso-LSD content and simply dose accordingly...

My unfortunate pet monkey was disappointed when he learned why this is not the case. The other inactive sterioisomers of LSD also bind to the same receptors and can cause an extremely ineffective experience...

So yeah I think there are definitely different "qualities" of LSD that go around depending on how pure of a product it is... BUT I think it would be reflected in subjective strength rather than a "speedy" or "dirty" trip.

But yeah if there were OTHER substances also making its way into final product maybe those are causing the effects???

 

[sit]

So yeah I think there are definitely different "qualities" of LSD that go around depending on how pure of a product it is... BUT I think it would be reflected in subjective strength rather than a "speedy" or "dirty" trip.

But yeah if there were OTHER substances also making its way into final product maybe those are causing the effects???

I don't think anyone has ever disputed that purity = strength. The debate is always over whether it also produces qualitatively different effects. And it is a debate that has been going on since the 60s, and that extremely knowledgeable people have disagreed with each other about.

As poopstation says - round and round we go...but speculation is an amusing carousel to ride for a while even if it can never get us anywhere. :D

So just to keep us spinning - one question that arises in my mind is this: would it necessarily be the case that 'impurities' in LSD-25 would have negative rather than benign effects?

My own scepticism towards the idea that different batches produce different effects has always primarily been derived from the fact that if you read the early literature on LSD, from before it was illegal, then it's very clear that all of the negative reactions that people often attribute to 'bad' or 'dirty' acid (body load, cramps, nausea, tension, anxiety, bad trips, speediness, etc.) were very commonly reported amongst users of Sandoz LSD. Then there's the famous Erowid experiment that gave a vintage vial of Sandoz to a bunch of contemporary street acid users, and they found that there was nothing special about it.

But that doesn't mean that there couldn't be something about the batches cooked up by the great alchemists such as Owsley, Nick Sand, Clearlight, etc which gave it an extra quality, that wasn't simply a matter of measurable clinical purity, does it?

What if the 'problem' with some batches of acid for some users isn't that those batches are impure or are really an inferior analogue, but that they really are just boring old LSD-25 (as most test results indicate), just like boring old Sandoz used to make, whereas what those lucky users (in the Golden State especially) are used to is actually either some superior analogue such as ALD-52 or something even more obscure but equally pleasant, or even LSD-25 with some kind of 'impurity' that produces a benign reaction?

I'm not saying I believe this to be the case - just inviting reasons why it can dismissed as a hypothesis for future reference...
Turn, Turn, Turn...

 

[Ismene]

If you had the "purest" LSD ever made in the history of mankind and you took it in a room with your dirty, shitten underpants on the floor that hadn't been hoovered in a month with a guy who was constantly breaking wind I think you'd still have a "dirty" trip.

 

[TheAppleCore]

^ lmao... :D

 

[PROZ4C]

I don't think anyone has ever disputed that purity = strength. The debate is always over whether it also produces qualitatively different effects. And it is a debate that has been going on since the 60s, and that extremely knowledgeable people have disagreed with each other about.

As poopstation says - round and round we go...but speculation is an amusing carousel to ride for a while even if it can never get us anywhere. :D

So just to keep us spinning - one question that arises in my mind is this: would it necessarily be the case that 'impurities' in LSD-25 would have negative rather than benign effects?

My own scepticism towards the idea that different batches produce different effects has always primarily been derived from the fact that if you read the early literature on LSD, from before it was illegal, then it's very clear that all of the negative reactions that people often attribute to 'bad' or 'dirty' acid (body load, cramps, nausea, tension, anxiety, bad trips, speediness, etc.) were very commonly reported amongst users of Sandoz LSD. Then there's the famous Erowid experiment that gave a vintage vial of Sandoz to a bunch of contemporary street acid users, and they found that there was nothing special about it.

But that doesn't mean that there couldn't be something about the batches cooked up by the great alchemists such as Owsley, Nick Sand, Clearlight, etc which gave it an extra quality, that wasn't simply a matter of measurable clinical purity, does it?

What if the 'problem' with some batches of acid for some users isn't that those batches are impure or are really an inferior analogue, but that they really are just boring old LSD-25 (as most test results indicate), just like boring old Sandoz used to make, whereas what those lucky users (in the Golden State especially) are used to is actually either some superior analogue such as ALD-52 or something even more obscure but equally pleasant, or even LSD-25 with some kind of 'impurity' that produces a benign reaction?

I'm not saying I believe this to be the case - just inviting reasons why it can dismissed as a hypothesis for future reference...
Turn, Turn, Turn...

Interesting, I often wonder if much of the "LSD" going around might have been ALD-52 I would love to try the stuff.

Myself I have never had different qualitative reactions to LSD only different levels of strength. Always the same amazingly electrifying body buzz, and same level of speediness which I very much enjoy that part.

LSD is weird for me too, as even with set and setting they have all been relatively similar trips to me as far as the peripheral effects, where my mind goes is certainly up to my mind but even the way it goes there is usually the very much the same.

Edit: Ahh an obvious possible cause just popped into my head. Diet and body chemistry might play a huge role in the peripheral effects of LSD! Think about it if someone starts their tripping days in great health but a few years later maybe if they have been malnourished and doing different physically damaging drugs maybe their body's where is poor shape and have bad peripheral reactions to LSD causing too much speedyness or body cramps.

That certainly seems plausible to me. Thought popped in my mind because recently I have an amazing experience on LSA and most people I know get terrible terrible body load form it. I am an exercise junkie and eat as healthy as possible never had bad peripheral effects form any drug in my whole life. Low and behold one time I tripped on shrooms and got very mild leg cramping nothing to even really label a "bad effect" but the only time this happend was a period where I tripped after several weeks of NOT going to the gym and eating junk food lol.

 

[sit]

^no question in my mind that the issue of general physical condition and diet is frequently overlooked in discussions of variable physical and mental effect. I've had phases of being super-fit and phases of not being, and it certainly makes a difference to my experience of acid, even when it's from the same batch (I've had bit of acid from particular batches laying in the freezer for years at a time...).

 

[Ismene]

Difficult to say whether it makes any genuine difference. If you believe being "fit" makes you "healthier" in some way then the placebo effect will be kicking in and you will start thinking "If I'm fit I'm supposed to enjoy life more so that probably means I'll enjoy tripping more too".

But there's plenty of people who have had astounding experiences on psychedelics who weren't fit. My own take is that being fit might be of more use when taking drugs like cocaine that stress the body more.

 

[sit]

^true enough

 

[Shambles]

If you had the "purest" LSD ever made in the history of mankind and you took it in a room with your dirty, shitten underpants on the floor that hadn't been hoovered in a month with a guy who was constantly breaking wind I think you'd still have a "dirty" trip.

You just got masses of bonus points for using the word "shitten". One of my faves that I'd not heard used for many years. Shitten

Interesting, I often wonder if much of the "LSD" going around might have been ALD-52 I would love to try the stuff.

Probably none. Don't you need LSD to make ALD-52? Or something like that - chemistry is not my forte but vaguely recall reading something like that. Possibly. Pretty sure that it's a rather impractical chemical to make and distribute on any widespread kinda scale though.

 

[Ismene]

Only ever heard my dad use "shitten"!

 

[Shambles]

Ha! Yup. Only recall Ol' Gramma Shambles using it. Old folk have some great sweariness