I was taught that needlepoint is L that has been refined over 7 times, making it a purer form, not an actual crystal type, but I guess to some, purer doesn't matter...cuz apparently 98% will do the same exact thing as 49% if taking double of the latter...
Hah, what an awesome coincidence: regarding the veracity of this sort of statement, I refer you to your own username. It's all fake!
It's all marketing to be precise. Just like 'kush' and 'doublestacked' rolls...
I am sorry but, "chinese needlepoint" makes me LOL.
I have worked raw point before and I gotta say I strongly doubt that it is ever made in china. I know all my raw comes from Oregon and locally in far northern california. It's not as common to come across needle as other qualities and the price is VERY high compared to my other prices. But, there is nothing like the trip from high quality LSD. I have read posts on BL in which members don't believe there is a different in crystal qualities and the trip they produce. They absolutely do. The worse the crystal is, the more negative side effects your body will experience such as gastro discomfort, back pain, neck pain, headaches etc.
So would you care then to posit a mechanism by which different batches of acid would produce different effects, is 'dirty' or 'clean'?
Because there's a problem with that hypothesis. It goes like this: when you're taking a blotter, you're taking something that has been exposed to a liquid containing the acid that results from a synthesis, and then dried, leaving the acid adsorbed (with a D) onto the internal structures of the paper. The total weight of the compounds left in the blotter once the solvent dries is generally in the high tens to low hundreds of micrograms. I do say compounds – plural – because there will be other isomers besides the active (+)-LSD.
But here's the thing: the major impurities in the product of an LSD synthesis will be those other isomers, and those isomers are totally inactive. Not mostly inactive, totally inactive. So the most likely possible candidates for compounds present besides (+)-LSD are totally irrelevant to the effect that administering the drug will have.
Right about now is where most proponents of the theory that acid can vary from batch to batch will say that there are other impurities that are active and thus will effect the subjective nature of the trip. I would challenge this statement as follows. Suppose that there is something that is an active compound that may be contaminating the blotter. The question obviously is then how much of this other active compound is present?
Well, let's say that the acid is 90% pure. Even then, the amount of this other active impurity on a 100 microgram blotter will be in theory a grand total of ten micrograms! But wait, we're forgetting that there are the other three totally inactive isomers of LSD present as well. So in actuality the amount of this hypothetical centrally-active contaminant will be less than ten micrograms, probably less than five micrograms!
But even if the 10% that wasn't acid was entirely made up of the active contaminant and no other inactive isomers of acid were present, you'd still need the compound to be fully effective at a dose of ten micrograms! That is crazy small; I don't know of a single active psychedelic that is anywhere near that potent. And so even if the acid is even less pure, hell let's make it only 50% pure, there's only going to be probably less than 25 micrograms of this hypothetical active contaminant because some of the 50% that is not (+)-LSD will be made up of the inactive isomers.
So we would need this hypothetical contaminant to cause effects – negative effects in this case since we are after all discussing supposedly 'dirty' acid – at a dose of probably less than five micrograms, and even in the case of acid that is so shitty that it is only 50% pure it would have to be active at no more than 25 micrograms and probably a fair bit less than that.
Do you know of any compounds that fit the bill? Hell even acid itself isn't active at 25 micrograms! And furthermore not only must this compound be truly absurdly potent, the potential pool of compounds from which to choose the identity of this hypothetical contaminant is smaller still since it would have to be produced somehow as a byproduct of the synthesis of LSD itself. And so when you really think about this scientifically, you see just how incredibly small the chances are that something that is active at those levels would be possibly included with the acid when the blotter gets lain.
---
So what then can account for the wide variety of effects that acid can produce? Because it would be foolish of me to claim that it is untrue that the subjective effects of acid wildly vary. The answer lies in the nature of the compound itself. Out of all of the psychedelic compounds available to the modern human, there is hardly anything that is intrinsically more variable than acid itself. LSD is without question one of the most – if not the single most – sensitive compound to set and setting. And it is also simultaneously one of the most powerful psychedelics known to man: it can be unbearably intense at times, either in a positive way or a negative way depending on the situation.
It also is known for its propensity to produce psychosomatic effects. That means that it is prone to producing a state where mental issues – unhappiness, guilt, whatever negativity is present – and translating that in a synaesthetic way into what feels like discomfort in one part of the body or another. This is in addition to the very real 'vegetative effects' that it can produce as a member of the ergoloid family.
So to reiterate what I said at the start of this post: can you specify some potential suspects for the identity of the compound that is active in body and mind in such a way as to produce negative feelings and discomfort, and also fulfills the criteria of being fully effective at less than 25 micrograms while also being somehow produced by a sloppy synthesis? Or can you propose a mechanism to scientifically explain the supposed variation from batch to batch as far as being 'dirty' or 'clean' that doesn't invoke the necessary presence of such an unlikely active contaminant?
I'm open to hearing anybody's theories about this, but I've been here since '03 with my old account and in that time this question of 'dirty acid' and speculation as to potential culprits has come up literally too many times to count. And in that time I haven't seen a plausible explanation for the supposed 'dirty' nature of one batch or another. People on. Both sides of the debate are quite vehemently assured that they are correct, and so the debate usually turns into just plain arguing, and so that's why I tried to approach this post from a scientific standpoint while keeping it devoid of vitriolic accusations or ad hominem nastiness, and as I said I'm open to theorizing on this subject, but just claiming 'it's true because I know it's true' doesn't cut it when logical analysis using the process of the scientific method and applying the idea of Occam's Razor has built up a fair bit of evidence backing up the opinion that tripping on acid is just an inherently variable experience.
it's been a while.
