Another cross-post from esotericPharma.org
This is part of a rough draft of what will become a longer article about this subject with several authors contributing.
There is a bit of incredulity when people hear all of this, which is understandable, partly because we all grew up hearing the same song and dance: nothing else fits on blotters, it's all just differences in set and setting, and partly because there have been so many instances where similar claims are made by people who do not really know what they are talking about as wild speculation without evidence, or simply as part of various LSD-related urban legends (which there are so many of ... because LSD's psychopharmacological action, essentially, is to touch the parts of our consciousness that scream "this is an incredibly significant experience!" Salience receptors, we could call them! And consequentially, mythopoesis is built into LSD's pharmacology ... but I digress) ... this here is none of the above. The existence of these n-alkyl lysergic acid amides other than LSD on blotter papers which saw significant commercial distribution is a documented fact backed up by years of subjective experiences of people who thought there was something "not quite right" about the LS"D" coming from certain sources ... some of this was questionable and more likely the result of set and setting or placebo effect, some of it was sour grapes from people with a financial interest in perpetuating these perceptions, some of it was patriotic sentimentality (American LSD is best!) ... and it turns out some of it was
true. This is really happening, and has been for some years. Now we have documented proof and a pair of very likely candidates for the molecule in question, and, for those in the known able to read between the lines, a convincing argument for why all of this went down like it did.
With regards to the latter -- some people might be inclined to moral outrage because in some sense a fraud was perpetrated here, but I am less inclined to moral outrage than I am to awe with the chemical and pharmacological genius behind this particular project. We can deconstruct the above GC/MS results and develop a theory as to why these particular compounds were chosen, and it is a very interesting "why." Someone clearly put a lot of time and effort into this, and likely not as a one-off experiment in the development of a novelty for novelty's sake (as in the case of a lot of the small-scale circulation of some of the more esoteric research chemicals.) Why put in all of this effort? The answer, of course, lies in the chemical processes involved. These compounds appeared in the literature without much fanfare and without any mention of being tested in man, but with some data as to their neuropharmacological profiles, which very closely resemble LSD, as do the responses of animals ... and, it turns out, the responses of trippers. The compounds in question fit two criteria: first, they are probably as close to the real thing as can be had, and second, answering the question of "why go to the trouble," they are able to be synthesized in a manner which deals with much less attention-drawing precursors, thus making life easier and safer for the chemists. In certain jurisdictions, the process might not actually be illegal at all.
And, it turns out, these compounds might just make life easier and safer for trippers as well. Going on subjective data and on the available receptor binding data, it is possible that the "LS?" drugs are shorter acting, less anxiogenic, and possess less so-called "behavioral toxicity" and potential for untoward psychological outcomes, while still replicating to a large extent the LSD experience or, perhaps as we have to call it now, the "psychedelic ergoloid" experience. The opposite side of this coin, of course, is that those with particularly discriminating taste in drugs may find that "something is missing" taking the non-diethylamide n-alkylated LAA's. The "something" often being characterized as "depth" or "spirituality." (It is interesting that the loss of this is paired to the loss of some of the more unpleasant, anxiogenic/psychotomimetic aspects). I, too, would say that although consuming these drugs is no longer a part of my life, I, subjectively speaking, thought the experiences that I had with the diethylamide were superior to the "other" lysergamides that I have encountered. However, apart from a general feeling of very minor subjective differences in the overall
Gestalt of the experience, the drugs are virtually identical and I repeat my doubts that most end-users would be able to tell the difference in a blind taste test.
To recap: most of the customer base either does not care or, a case could be made, might very well prefer the more novel compounds. Those involved with production and distribution are less exposed to risk and probably increased profitability (although it is worth noting the product is slightly less potent per unit weight). The negative impact on anyone is minimal, so, while some people's initial response to this might be that it is scandalous and an occasion for moral outrage due to concerns about truth and advertising, the truth is that from a chemical, pharmacological, counterforensic, and economic perspective, somebody somewhere pulled a brilliant coup, and did so very quietly.
Ethically speaking, of course, it's in a bit of a gray area. We all would love to be able to know exactly what we are getting in this market, but unfortunately due to the social, economic, political, and legal realities surrounding this particular market, it's not always possible. But, I submit, putting these compounds is not the same as putting something like DOB or 5-MeO-AMT on blotter, nor is it like selling piped out rolls, fentadope, levamisole-laced cocaine, or any of the other myriad scandals regarding misbranded drugs that have come out over the years. 4-AcO-DMT "mushroom chocolates" do sort of come to mind, though, as a rough analogy to what is going down here. Nonetheless, when the pieces of this puzzle became apparent to a number of people last year, it was my feeling that the information had ought to become public, as it gradually has, although some parts of us wondered whether this carefully kept secret had ought to be exposed. But the principle wins out that informed consumers should be able to know what they are putting into their bodies, if only for curiosity's sake (as I do not see any real safety concerns with this particular substitution, unlike, say, some of the stuff that shows up in,
inter alia, "E" pills, heroin, cocaine, and ketamine).
Regardless of what does or does not become public knowledge, however, I imagine that the production and circulation of these compounds will continue unabated and that they will have a certain market share going into the future. The vast majority of those consuming the compounds will neither know no care and, blissfully unaware, will continue to believe wholeheartedly that they are "tripping on LSD," and, for all intents and purposes, they essentially are ... well, at least, they are tripping on the L and the S, and a very close approximation of the "D" (and to be flippant about it, "B" and "P" even rhyme with "D!") We're talking about misrepresentation of drugs, but, to a degree, we're talking about a white lie. The white lie has been believed uncritically for a while, and those who thought differently were even looked at on occasion as foolish for believing that "something else" was circulated as LSD. Now we know different. The question is, what do we do with this knowledge? And, as is always worth asking, does it even matter? This stuff is out there. There is some indeterminable but significant likelihood that many of you have taken it, without even knowing. And, by most reports, the experience is not a bad one. These new ergoloids are actually pretty interesting and cool drugs, and pretty close, subjectively and pharmacologically, to the original.
