chemical processes are difficult to figure out, but once theyve been figured out its not *that* hard to perform them provided you have some idea whats going on/what to look out for and have the equipment.
Yes and no. Chemistry theory and synthetic processes are quite different disciplines, and neither can be learned properly overnight. Even if someone knows the theory i.e. molecular interactions, it doesn't automatically mean they can perform the processes. These have to be learned/practiced separate to and in addition to the theory. Yet without the theory, mistakes are common, and I'm talking about chemistry in general here, not solely in relation to drugs.
What happens if a process doesn't go as planned. Or you need to check the contents or salvage something? When talking about a more complex process, a complete knowledge of the chemistry involved is usually mandatory. As a rather crude analogy, it's why pseudo cooks can't turn to making meth from a more involved process; they usually don't understand the chemistry involved. Regardless of what route was chosen, LSD in comparison to meth or MDMA synths would be far more involved. This is because of several things. Firstly there's the handling of the substances; intermediates are unstable, then there's the separation processes which as mentioned would also be tricky. Finally there's the importance of having a fairly sterile and clean air environment with the correct lighting. Not to mention the importance of the chemist being protected from accidental exposure.
With some routes (check
Rhodium-LSD @ Erowid if you want to look at typical syntheses) there are less problems, although obtaining the starting materials and other chemicals would be anything but easy. LSD chems are highly watched. Even if you could obtain ergotamine from migraine medicines, you would need a pallet load to get a decent amount. Then there's the procedures that require chemicals which are anything but "over the counter". Then there's the costs e.g. Alumina for chromatography is damned expensive, particularly with the amounts likely to be required for separating the isomers. In short, start to finish its a big operation, requiring lots of expensive and/or hard to obtain chemos and equipment.
As for Chem engineers: Chemical engineering involves industrial chemistry and the processes and scales normally found in chemical plants. Fluid dynamics, reactor vessels, filtration etc etc, while important things to know for any chemist, are nevertheless not the essentials a synthetic chemist typically needs to know and understand. The scale of the synthetic chemist is completely different, and as said, unless trained in pharmaceutical or medicinal chemistry, typical industrial applied chemistry as taught today doesn't cover these areas.
If anyone thought they'd take chemistry at Uni with the intention of making LSD, I'd say that by the time you'd become proficient in the techniques involved, you'd be aspiring to higher (and legal) things. There are only a couple of institutes in Australia that teach traditional organic chemistry to this degree, and they tend to be the hardest to get into (highest standards).
A course in medicinal chemistry or drug discovery might give you some info, but I'd say it would take more than just graduate level knowledge in relation to most of the courses currently offered. These days drug discovery uses techniques such as in-silico, combinatorial or scaffold chemistry together with high throughput screening in order to find the drugs of interest. While chemists are still required to work out the conventional synthesis, most of this work is done off shore at the present. Another worldwide and very worrying trend is that established institutions are dropping chemistry as a course option. Even Major institutions such as Oxford are doing this. Once upon a time Armadale Uni had a good traditional chem degree program, as did the institute I studied at. But because of changing trends (and to a lesser degree because of drugs produced on campus) these institutes have altered their courses and in many cases, now don't go very far into organic chem.
As for LSD quality. Well, I do know that some LSD tested in this country over the past 3 years contained phenethylamines and other substitutes including at least one with AMT. It's quite possible some acid also contained LSD analogues, but without access to seizure tests, it's impossible to say whether chemists are venturing down this road. Perhaps ALD-52 or another active is being made, but ALD-52 is unstable so the question has to be asked, would chemists consider it to be worthwhile to manufacture and distribute on a wide scale.?
As for impurities and possible affects on the trip. I see this as unlikely to be a problem for users in regards to blotters, as any impurities in quantities found on a standard blotter would not be likely to have any real affect. With liquid it could be a different story, although the stability of LSD could well be affected with any such leftovers, side reaction products etc. Remember, LSD is very soluble in water. If there are 20 x 50uL drops in one millilitre, and 1 gram of LSD crystal dissolves in 1 mL, then each drop can potentially contain 1gram/ 20 = 50 milligrams. That's 500 x 100ug doses!
So liquid LSD as found at street level is really a very dilute mixture, meaning any manufacturing impurities present in a standard dose of "liquid" are likely to be present only in tiny amounts; unlikely to affect health or the quality of the trip itself.
