I took ~20mg (slighty over half of a 35mg sample I weighted out, not sure how much i'd take - I chose caution) sublingually about 3 hours ago - presently a distinct mood enhancement, coming in waves, pro-social, and without the sort of deep wandering thoughts typically associated with psychedelics (indeed, this post is manifest proof of that - even on fairly low doses of psychedelics, I have trouble posting, because I keep going back and rephrasing things. EDIT: Well it DID wind up being a much longer post than I planned....). It almost reminds me of the way low doses of the APB's feel (the only kind of dose of those chemicals I've taken so far)... Muscle tension is so far entirely absent (I usually get enough to be annoying on the comeup of psychedelics), and gastic discomfort likewise absent. If this is all this substance does, I'd consider it a worthwhile material - I imagine it would be great for going out dancing.
Presumably, we'd call a low potency psychedelic which binds with low affinity (and/or low efficacy) an "enhancer", while the more potent (hence presumably high binding affinity) psychedelic we took it with would be the "enhancee". The boundary is most clear-cut with something with way-high binding affinitys being enhanced (LSD or an NBOMe), and something of low potency (ie, low binding affinity) or that has a low ceiling (so presumably low efficacy), but with a desirable or complementary effect profile. Then you'd end up with your high potency psychedelic kicking the low potency one off the contested receptors (providing a strong trip), with the enhancer, well, enhancing the experience through it's actions on the related receptors which the high potency one doesn't bind to (which are - hopefully, and probably - the ones responsible for the desirable effects of the enhancer). My point is that from a biological standpoint, the idea of some psychedelics being valuable as enhancers to others makes sense.
IamMe90 - in your examples of LSD and 2C's, it would be the 2C's enhancing the LSD, working under the assumptions above. The LSD would be providing stronger HT2A agonism by taking the 2Cs' place on those receptors (Where the 2C's have lowish efficacy), while the 2C's are still binding to whatever other receptors they bind to that give the effects their distinct character (It's not unreasonable to hypothesize, knowing that all typical psychedelics are HT2A agonists, that the differences between them are due to how strongly they agonize HT2A (strength) as well as what else they interact with(character of the trip))... It rather makes sense to me that LSD + 2C-X would feel to have much of the character of the 2C-X, but with a much greater intensity.
25I-NBOMe (being a very strong and selective HT2A agonist) would make sense to use in combinations with an enhancer (by my terminology) as well, by this logic. I've been meaning to try adding a low dose of 25I-NBOMe or 25C-NBOMe to another psychedelic, to sort of test my theory. Certainly, if that didn't provide excellent synergy with weak-ish psychedelics, that would be a strike against my theory. 25C-NBOMe and AL sounds kinda nice...
I'm suddenly wondering if there is a special quality that enhancers may have, which is subtle but unmistakable and not the same if substituted with a threshold dose of a more potent psychedelic... or instead that is a load of crock, and like IamMe90 suggested this is just not a winner.
And I'm not even saying that I know or suspect that AL is an 'enhancer'. Fck, if you'd ask me for an example of an enhancer as opposed to a psychedelic, even that is tricky... maybe it is what 2C-T-21 sounds like from reports??
Presumably, we'd call a low potency psychedelic which binds with low affinity (and/or low efficacy) an "enhancer", while the more potent (hence presumably high binding affinity) psychedelic we took it with would be the "enhancee". The boundary is most clear-cut with something with way-high binding affinitys being enhanced (LSD or an NBOMe), and something of low potency (ie, low binding affinity) or that has a low ceiling (so presumably low efficacy), but with a desirable or complementary effect profile. Then you'd end up with your high potency psychedelic kicking the low potency one off the contested receptors (providing a strong trip), with the enhancer, well, enhancing the experience through it's actions on the related receptors which the high potency one doesn't bind to (which are - hopefully, and probably - the ones responsible for the desirable effects of the enhancer). My point is that from a biological standpoint, the idea of some psychedelics being valuable as enhancers to others makes sense.
IamMe90 - in your examples of LSD and 2C's, it would be the 2C's enhancing the LSD, working under the assumptions above. The LSD would be providing stronger HT2A agonism by taking the 2Cs' place on those receptors (Where the 2C's have lowish efficacy), while the 2C's are still binding to whatever other receptors they bind to that give the effects their distinct character (It's not unreasonable to hypothesize, knowing that all typical psychedelics are HT2A agonists, that the differences between them are due to how strongly they agonize HT2A (strength) as well as what else they interact with(character of the trip))... It rather makes sense to me that LSD + 2C-X would feel to have much of the character of the 2C-X, but with a much greater intensity.
25I-NBOMe (being a very strong and selective HT2A agonist) would make sense to use in combinations with an enhancer (by my terminology) as well, by this logic. I've been meaning to try adding a low dose of 25I-NBOMe or 25C-NBOMe to another psychedelic, to sort of test my theory. Certainly, if that didn't provide excellent synergy with weak-ish psychedelics, that would be a strike against my theory. 25C-NBOMe and AL sounds kinda nice...