Lysergamides The Big & Dandy Non-LSD Ergoloids Blotter Thread

[SKL]

To say that the exact same material at random will cause

Trip A: extensive open eye visuals, zero to very little body load
Trip B: no visuals, extreme body load

is also not reasonable. Never happened to me when I had a quantity on hand. Same batch always tended to do pretty much same thing. I cant comprehend where you guys are coming from claiming this. It is very much at odds with my experience, and that of others I know, and does not make pharmacological sense.

You keep saying it over and over but I feel it is an extraordinary claim. Perhaps I have an extraordinary brain that responds in a far higher consistency than yours does, I dunno.

But anyway, good discussion, I feel we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of the "different effects" aspects of the inquiry. Well sort of. Seems difficult to ever really quantify such things when a trip can last for such a long time and contain so many separate "momentary impression units."

Well, I have definitely experienced this sort of variation with tbe exact same material. Less so as regards the bodily effects, but with regards to the sensory and psychological effects the potential for variation is extreme. I've also experienced similar variability with a wide swath of drugs, not all of which are psychedelic. Set, setting, and other intrinsic factors (balances of neurotransmitters, whatever) are enormously powerful in determining the qualitative nature of the experience. The pharmacology of psychedelics and of the ergoloids in particular is hugely complex and interacts in a very subtle manner with an immeasurable number of variables in our brain, and the psychological effects also immeasurably complex and interacting in a very subltle manner with an immeasurable number of variables in our mind, if you will permit, arguendo, my unabashed dualism of brain and mind for the moment.

It is obvious that different drugs have different effects on the mind/brain due to their different pharmacological properties. However, there have been studies done in which subjects were unable to distinguish between LSD and 4-HO-DMT, not to mention the study in which people were given a high or a low dose of LSD and told the opposite, and they tended to react more in the manner of what they were told rather than what they were given. I find this exceedingly hard to believe, I think there are problems with these studies and I'm quite sure I could differentiate between LSD and 4-HO-DMT, but they all go to show that not all the determinants of the psychedelic state are pharmacological.

I think to deny the possibility that psychedelics have potentially hugely variegated effects actually downplays how complex and fascinating they actually are. The pharmacology is infinitely more complex than just metaphorically turning the drug effect on and off like a lightswitch. The possibilities truly are endless.

I would even venture to say that the amount of subjective variability possible between 2 LSD experiences does, in fact, approach or perhaps even exceed the subjective variability between closely related but different drugs. The pharmacology here is incredibly complex and nothing is simple or black and white.

I am very interested in studying subjective differences between psychedelics and this is a large part of what I hope to do with the Esoteric Pharmacology Project; however, I am quite doubtful that in a double blind type setting (such as buying a blotter of unknown provenance off most dealers ) most people could distinguish between closely relates drugs ... However, the specific effects of the putative non-diethyl lysergamides in man are relatively unknown and most of what we have about them is speculative at best.

 

[electric spirit]

To say that the exact same material at random will cause

Trip A: extensive open eye visuals, zero to very little body load
Trip B: no visuals, extreme body load

is also not reasonable.

...yet this has been my experience many times (except it isn't totally random as some have pointed out).

But it shouldn't be too hard to test out in practice:

1) Assemble a group of people who claim to feel the difference between LSD and the alleged analog.
2) Dose them randomly with one or the other.
3) Ask which one they think they're on and compare results.

 

[SKL]

^ Go to any large music festival in the U.S. and ask the older hippies about the differences between white fluff, silver, amber, etc ... You'll hear a lot of very lively discussion and assured distinctions ... All of which are total crap, placebo effect vs. marketing hype.

Now, I do believe that (a) some impurities in LSD, particularly as regards diethylamine being incompletely distilled, exist, are little studied, and have potential effects, and (b) that other lysergamides have circulated.

But the vast majority of the subjective differences between LSD experiences are in all probability due to non-pharmacological factors.

 

[Shambles]

... Less so as regards the bodily effects, but with regards to the sensory and psychological effects the potential for variation is extreme...

The changes in bodyfeel did strike me as being more strange than the mental/emotional differences but - for me at least - I think S&S also covers that. In the example I gave above the second trip involved a level of discomfort (not extreme by any means but noticeable and occasionally irksome) but it was very much an emotional clear-out style trip. It seems to me that the bodily sensations were likely due to emotional tensions made physical as I worked through various things. I'd see it as probably another aspect of S&S that is less ubiquitous than the changes apparent in other aspects of trips. I could also quite believe that certain impurities will likely play a role fairly frequently - stomach cramps seem to be one such symptom which certain batches are frequently associated with by many people. In such cases when individual variation is narrow and reports of a specific effect are wide I'd suspect contamination of some sort. Probably strychnine

Interesting studies you mention there. There have been a number of such things (the famous example of identical doses of LSD given in different coloured tabs producing totally different subjective effects leaps to mind) and I think that taken together they certainly add a lotta weight to the theory that S&S is likely the predominant factor in the dramatic differences between experiences of the exact same dose and substance.

 

[raggedy_acid]

But the vast majority of the subjective differences between LSD experiences are in all probability due to non-pharmacological factors.

Or could it have to do with how people can explain the same exact thing but make it sound as different as black and white due to education?

Could the subjective differences be due to our difference in ability to describe reality?

 

[SKL]

I was referring to subjective differences between different experiences experienced by the same individual ... Now, the problems of communicating very subjective things and comparing the reports of different individuals is an entirely different and even more complicated matter! So many dimensions to this...

 

[DwayneHoover]

I think the ability to discriminate between two totally different psychedelics will depend alot on the amount of experience possessed by the subject.

I am 100% certain that if you gave me a dose of LSD one day and a dose of some tryptamine RC or some 2C another day I could tell you with 100 percent accuracy which was which. The accuracy of identifying WHICH tryptamine might be a little less, but again that improves with experience, kind of like facial recognition. For instance I am so extremely familar with the very specific pattern of effects of 4-aco-dipt that I am certain I could identify it precisely no matter what. Same with Methylone. Same with 2C-I. Others that I have less experience with, I won't have learned the pattern as well, so identification will be less accurate.

You are right so far as varying visual effects to a degree, but I have always found that one element - the strength and qualities of the "visual tracer" effect is a telltale giveaway and is always quite regular and identifiable, at least for me, but perhaps I have mentally focused on that effect more intensely than others might have. It seems like a rather mechanical effect of the impact of the LSD (or 2C-I, the other one that creates a very reliable tracer effect in me) on the visual cortex. Seems like a very mechanical process, not subject to alot of influence from shifting emotional landscapes.

"Body Load" also seems to me to have been pretty consistent and not changing alot, again, at least for me. A given drug, or a given batch of LSD always seems to me to have a quite distinctive and regular pattern of physical activity side-effects. So I dunno, perhaps there are those people for whom these things ARE more regular and stable, and other people tend to have much less fixed responses. Different TYPES of "responders". Perhaps that is another element at the root of all these disagreements, people assuming that everyone has the same sort of reaction profiles that they do when in fact, each person's system might respond differently, in general, and specifically to different chemicals. So comparing reactions between different people may well be next to useless. But WITHIN ONE PERSON, who feels that his responses are quite stable and predictable, it seems reasonable to me that one could learn these things better and with finer precision than another might. So to make a blanket assertion that "Because *I* have highly variable reactions and cant tell A from B, therefore YOU must be making up this 'ability to discern' " seems to me not proper.

And the apocryphal tale of Owsley's experiment of making different colored blotters and laughing at all the different hugely varied reactions, I give zero veracity to that. That ONE story has been getting repeated over and over so its part of the "LSD canon", and it's an amusing anecdote , but I don't consider it a valid reliable data point at all. For all we know that could have originated because he wanted to make a point to someone in an argument (like this one) and just made that whole thing up, there is no proof of any kind that it actually occurred, it's just an oft-repeated fable so far as I am concerned, and the returned "data", oral reports in Owsley's memory, would be equally inadmissible.

 

[IamMe90]

And the apocryphal tale of Owsley's experiment of making different colored blotters and laughing at all the different hugely varied reactions, I give zero veracity to that. That ONE story has been getting repeated over and over so its part of the "LSD canon", and it's an amusing anecdote , but I don't consider it a valid reliable data point at all. For all we know that could have originated because he wanted to make a point to someone in an argument (like this one) and just made that whole thing up, there is no proof of any kind that it actually occurred, it's just an oft-repeated fable so far as I am concerned, and the returned "data", oral reports in Owsley's memory, would be equally inadmissible.

it just seems contradictory to me that you aren't willing to take this anecdote as serious evidence but you are willing to consider the anecdotal reports of people who purport that they can tell they took something on blotters that "wasn't LSD" with absolutely no controls or scientific basis

it seems like you just want to believe what you want to believe and you're willing to make arguments against people that apply to your very own (rather poor) body of evidence

 

[raggedy_acid]

it just seems contradictory to me that you aren't willing to take this anecdote as serious evidence but you are willing to consider the anecdotal reports of people who purport that they can tell they took something on blotters that "wasn't LSD" with absolutely no controls or scientific basis

it seems like you just want to believe what you want to believe and you're willing to make arguments against people that apply to your very own (rather poor) body of evidence

Hippie fable vs personal experience is quite different.

 

[amanitadine]

^^^ Are they? Seems to me they are the same thing.....(I can't see a way to measure or quantify either). Regardless, the point stands. Look at all the hoo-ha surrounding Acid, as has been pointed out repeatedly, most recently with SKL's comment on "fluff" , "silver", etc. I have seen several times the same LSD, at the same concentration, laid out on different blotter prints get drastically differing review once it makes its way to the consumer. And hilariously differing approximations on dosage filter back up as well (this stuff only has 50mcg per hit, whereas this stuff has 120-150mcg, etc etc....all the same), just pointing to the power of set, setting, and suggestion. LSD is an intensely malleable beast, this I can say with certainty.

SomeKindaLove - Your position and approach is admirable and quite refreshing. Nice to see someone bring up a subject, and not get so personally attached so as to throw reason out the window and doggedly insist. Props sir! Great thread, has made for some good conversatin'

 

[averagetool]

Hmm....... It seems to me that LSD is the only substance that people have these problems with. I believe that, while maybe set, setting, impurities may have something to do with it, the main thing is that LSD is sort of like an ever-changing chameleon. Maybe the age of the batch has something to do with it, too? how much heat it's had since laying? Maybe LSD is just different than other drugs. I certainly think so. I'm not saying that there aren't other things being put on tabs, but I did a lot of acid from the same source and had different experiences. But green gellies acted like green gellies. Blue likew blue. Purple like purple. Anyone else had those red ones that were going around Philadelphia in 1998? I had fun with them, but a friend said he tripped for 22 hours on one geltab!!!!! I certainly didn't experience that, and the hit was from my sheet. I gave it to him. What you expect from the trip changes what you get out of it. Period. LSD is LSD is LSD is a weird drug.

 

[DwayneHoover]

it just seems contradictory to me that you aren't willing to take this anecdote as serious evidence but you are willing to consider the anecdotal reports of people who purport that they can tell they took something on blotters that "wasn't LSD" with absolutely no controls or scientific basis

it seems like you just want to believe what you want to believe and you're willing to make arguments against people that apply to your very own (rather poor) body of evidence

Quit putting words in my mouth, you are erecting a strawman.

I am choosing to believe my own experience and that of people I know personally any have tripped with. Not some legion of people posting somewhere.

"The Anecdote" is from many decades in the past far far away from me, related tenth-hand, supposedly told by a notorious PRODUCER of LSD blotters, with a known reputation for being a "character," with many reasons to NOT be telling the truth, to some unknown person who then passed it on to someone who passed it on etc. until it is not the story we hear today. I dunno maybe its in a book he or someone wrote or something.

It's odd that you believe this verbal mythical story from the distant past, and not the experiences of myself and other real people I know live today.

I am not saying I believe the different trips, specifically the bad trips with no visuals and horrible bodyload, were "not lsd" necessarily, but at least possibly lsd with some contaminants which, while possibly not active on their own, in the presence of LSD managed to alter its effects in some way as to make it primarily a bad body load thing and not a sublime mental trip thing.

And saying you expect "controls" and "scientific basis" is also absurd. Controls? Babe, this is NOT a government sponsored research study. The whole thing comes down to actual tests performed on 0.00000000001% of all batches ever produced, some of which HAVE by the way proven the presence of OTHER stuff, versus the actual reports of actual humans in far larger numbers than these tests.... neither of these data sources have any statistical controls whatsoever, so STFU about THAT!

 

[IamMe90]

i don't think you know what a strawman is

 

[DwayneHoover]

Also, I am not wanting to be absolutist about this... I do agree as averagetool says "LSD is a weird drug" and that different people can well have all sorts of wacky different experiences on it.

By my point is that reports from MYSELF and others I know well personally bear out that this attempt to convince us that the "lousy acid" we come across from time to time, no visuals, no 'sense of awe", lots of icky body load is EXACTLY the same drug as "the good clean trippy stuff" does not have as much validity and "scientific" support as its proponents are trying to claim. Its all based on very scant actual data, and alot of abstract reasoning.

Comparisons between different people in different situations, not so useful I agree.

But reports from people, serious intelligent explorers not "random party kids", with lots of experience doing different batches in essentially THE SAME set & setting, and experiencing these vastly different effect sets should be taken seriously as signs of probable different substances, not cavalierly dismissed as nothing. There is alot more bunk going around than the proponents of this ITS ALL ALWAYS PURE LSD, ITS ALL ALWAYS PURE LSD, ITS ALL ALWAYS PURE LSD mantra are trying so hard to convince everyone to believe.

 

[literate]

I tripped a lot in the late 1990's when LSD was prevalent in America, and I will say this: real LSD (1) lasts a good 12 hours every time, and (2) gives terrible anxiety everytime.

I silently scoff at young ones who claim, "Oh yeah, I've taken LSD. It's a very mellow trip." This is not correct! Real LSD is anxiogenic and lasts a solid 12 hours every time. It is also prone to induce bouts of emotional lability in its users.

 

[Godzilla]

I am returning to the LSD scene after 16 years of not touching the stuff.. When I first tried it i came on here trying to describe my expierience and swore that it was so much more enlightening, and clearer, and overall more wonderfull than in the past. I was convinced that it was all about set and setting. I believed this to be true because my set is wonderful today and my settings have been beautiful... Then the last few trips i have started to increase the dose. I noticed an insane body load, stronger than 2ci, and some diarrhea. Then this last time I increase the dose to two blotters and had diarrhea for three days.
my normal expierience is as follows.
Dose. 45-1hr later full effects.
Hrs.; 1-3 very beautiful visuals, things are very clear, I can function very good. Things seems to move alot, especially brush work paintings, the floors walls have a lot of movement but is interesting. I can easily ignore the movement and continue to my next activity. CLOSED EYE visuals are absolutely amazing, like seeing in bright light with your eyes closed.

Hrs 3-6 I like to call it my hooney moon time. Everything appears almost like it does when on MDMA or 2ci. Peak is gone. Body load is not as severe. Sex is amazing at this time. Little visuals but if you look at lazers lights ect you will like them.
6-12 hrs fun time still feel like your on a trip but no where near as pronounced.
Music is absolutely amazing.
This is if i take the LSD alone. and i do get the diarrhea.
I do not get diarrhea from MDMA or 2ci.
I have a very clean diet of organic almost everything, lots of whole grains, and am in very good physical condition, a lot of exercise ect. little to no alcohol.

My last expierience I dosed some MDMA and lots of nitrous with an amazing sound system in the middle of the mountains in a beautiful house with my four best friends. Most euphoric experience of my life. to bad it followed three days of the shits. lol

Please dont erase this or move this thread to trip reports.. It belongs here I want to know if people have similar expierience with this possible new form of LSD or if is good old LSD. Im not asking anyone to identify anything. Thanks.. My blotter was blue paper with black funny looking suns on it. If this post needs to be edited then please do so but I do not think it should be moved. This is in interest of all the blue light psychadelic users and we need to know if what we are taking is infact good old lsd or something new and if it can harm us or is as safe as LSD.

 

[averagetool]

Dwayne, I was not trying to say that what's out there is only 'pure LSD, only that the acid that I've had in the past, which I think is real, always had the same effects depending upon batch. But come to think of it, I revisited red gellies a year after I got them when I found some I had stashed. They were different. But the evidence the op shows seems to indicate that there is something else getting laid on blotters these days, aside from DOx, which I've never had the displeasure of having, thank god! All I want is the real shit that can make a plain kleenex look like a sheet of bounty!

 

[DwayneHoover]

i don't think you know what a strawman is

Not to get off topic TOO much, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

What I meant was that you were making out like I am saying I am considering as my only basis the reports of all kinds of random different people reporting certain conclusions over the net. And you were ridiculing the obvious weakness of that.

Whereas I am saying my basis is the direct observed detailed experiences and effects that have been had by myself and people I know and tripped with in real life.

Which are 2 VERY different sets of things.

Hence the section in italics is what it seemed to me you were erecting a strawman argument that misrepresents what I was saying only so you could easily knock it down.

I'm a software engineer, and know a little about "scientific approach". And neither side in this debate have much in way of claims of anything resembling a statistically meaningful dataset. I DO know that in the area of pharmaceutical research, the fine details of the subjective impressions of the users of drugs being tested are gathered and scrutinized VERY carefully and are given substantial weight and importance in the process of releasing new drugs to market. Alot more weight than those arguing "all 100% pure LSD all the time" are giving to the vast number of 1st person accounts that would seem to indicate differences in the material of some sort.

In fact they seem to be saying that BECAUSE lsd affects the mind in particular, that in this case EVERY user impression report must be disregarded and viewed as tainted unreliable worthless information. Which I am saying is preposterous and radical.

 

[SKL]

Hmm....... It seems to me that LSD is the only substance that people have these problems with. I believe that, while maybe set, setting, impurities may have something to do with it, the main thing is that LSD is sort of like an ever-changing chameleon. Maybe the age of the batch has something to do with it, too? how much heat it's had since laying? Maybe LSD is just different than other drugs. I certainly think so. I'm not saying that there aren't other things being put on tabs, but I did a lot of acid from the same source and had different experiences. But green gellies acted like green gellies. Blue likew blue. Purple like purple. Anyone else had those red ones that were going around Philadelphia in 1998? I had fun with them, but a friend said he tripped for 22 hours on one geltab!!!!! I certainly didn't experience that, and the hit was from my sheet. I gave it to him. What you expect from the trip changes what you get out of it. Period. LSD is LSD is LSD is a weird drug.

LSD is definitely a very weird drug. Not only is it one of the most complex psychedelics from a pharmacological standpoint (ibogaine is probably more complicated but few others are even contenders), but also it carries a tremendous weight of very salient cultural baggage ... viz. the amount of mythology that has come up surrounding it, more so than probably any other substance on the planet.

 

[DwayneHoover]

^ Haha... well finally we have found something we can all agree on! LSD is indeed a very weird drug. Hooray! I say we break out the champagne and all get plastered together!

Of course, we would just get into an argument about whether or not all the bubbles really enhanced the alcohol absorption, or if this was erroneous placebo effect from unreliable tipsy subjects, hehe.