• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

[LSD Subthread] The Clean vs. Dirty Acid Debate (Part 1 - Archived)

P

Psychedelic Gleam

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
979
Does "Clean/Dirty" acid exist?

What I mean to ask is:

Is there a chemical difference between 2 doses that would make 1 "clean" and the other dirty?

OR are these terms bullshit, is it either LSD or not LSD?

Does this question make sense?

I hear people call one dose dirty that feels clean to me and visa versa so I wonder is the clean/dirtiness more from the individual's personal chemistry then the LSD's makeup.
 
Well since someone's gonna say it anyway, and I'm here right now... UTFSE.

This thread has been covered before. It was the first thread that came up with a search of "clean dirty acid".

Click here
 
Last edited:
There are four isomers of LSD. Only one is active (D-LSD). Due to age, or because it was made that way, a given batch of LSD may be a certain percentage of D-iso-LSD, which is not psychedelic. It is up for debate as to whether or not this affects the quality of the experience.
 
^up for debate to / among those who have difficulty distinguishing shit from Shinola or forming a cogent opinion.

in addition to isomers, number of washings and other objective factors, i and a few other members of this board who have chewed and swallowed enough sheets to note such things, believe that the particular cook's karma and spiritual intent contribute significantly to the morphogenics and overall quality of both the catalyst and the experience.
 
What are the 4 isomers? I've aware of two, LSD (D-LSD) and it's epimer iso-LSD (L-LSD). Where's the other chiral carbon that's in play in samples to make 4 isomers?

I think if you read what Erowid summarized, there does seem to be a pattern of 4 compounds in acid. They found a close similarity in this pattern of 4 compounds in HPLC analysis. I would think this would be LSD and iso-LSD, along with some residual starting material (e.g. ergotamine) existing as a pair of epimers (ergotamine/ergotaminine). I don't think it's UV degradation products such as lumi-LSD.
 
Last edited:
D-LSD, L-LSD, D-iso-LSD, and L-iso-LSD.

^up for debate to / among those who have difficulty distinguishing shit from Shinola or forming a cogent opinion.
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to mean? DO you have analysis with authenticated samples of all the LSD isomers to know better?
 
Well, ya got your clean acid(totally white on the bottom)
and dirty acid (Any sign of brown stains or discolouring is a sign of bad hits)

HOWEVER, not in all circumstances.... When a hit is darkened through the dipping process it can endup being a strong hit) but still lsd is active in mcg which would mean, less mixture buildup the better... which brings me to my theory that possibly lsd is cleanest and purest in its white un stained form.

I can say, ive take hits that were totally clean and that made me trip completely off my rocker. however, when I compare it to my trips with dirtier acid, which at the time i thought were good. I can variably see that the trips on stainless acid are more uplifting less dirty feeling and quite remarkable... sometimes you get the shakes, and other times everything i just pure and clean...

And as far as different feelings from experiences, the dirty sortof full of onself feeling it usually gotten in a badly made hit, and on the other hand. Clean lsd, will endup with a much higher experience when the tripper will be open minded and clear headed for optimal trippage ;)

This is all through experience however, soit should be taken with a grain of salt... I am pretty fucking sure though. I know my acid.
:)

and when it comes to liquid and microdots, same thing applies, it should feel clean and uplifting not down and dirty....
 
morninggloryseed said:
What is that supposed to mean? DO you have analysis with authenticated samples of all the LSD isomers to know better?
Click to expand...

MGS, as you well know, this was in no way a dig atcha, my Boulder brutha.

all i'm saying is once you get to the experiential point where you can tell the strength and purity of your dose by quality of the electricity taste alone (well, that and the initial morphogenic impression), you certainly know the various components that make the LSD experience what it is.

i put it in one word - Karma. ie the righteous cook will ensure all the prerequisites to eliminate the ojective qualitative confounds and 'charge' the batch to impart that certain elusive, as of yet unquantifiable, yet very palpable variable, which really contributes to, neigh, makes the cosmogenics of the true LSD experience...
 
Everytime ive heard someone refer to acid as being dirty ive always believed that it lay in making the actual acid. From what ive read, the more careful the chemist is in following the steps and not cutting corners relates to the quality of the product.

Im no chemist but i assume if the chemist is lazy and doesnt wash/remove certain by-products of the synthesis then that is that cause of bad/dirty acid which i have found causes body load etc
 
D-LSD is D-LSD is LSD is acid.

The presence of impurities in the sheets does not change the composition of the LSD molecule or this magical isomer.

Therefore, we should technically talk of dirty blotter, dirty liquid, and dirty crystal. The 'acid' itself is unchanging.

I know it sounds pedantic, but in many 'clean/dirty acid' threads on the internet you see many people convinced that 'dirty' acid is chemically different (in a fundamental, structural sense) to 'clean' acid.
 
i was under thew impression that "dirty acid" was a term used when referring to acid that has different than acid effects, e.g., staying up thirty plus hours. and it usually resulting in it being a research chemical.
 
Black Octagon said:
I know it sounds pedantic, but in many 'clean/dirty acid' threads on the internet you see many people convinced that 'dirty' acid is chemically different (in a fundamental, structural sense) to 'clean' acid.
Click to expand...

An isomer IS structurally different from the other. And D-LSD might be acid, but D-iso-LSD is as well, what else is it supposed to be?

nanobrain said:
all i'm saying is once you get to the experiential point where you can tell the strength and purity of your dose by quality of the electricity taste alone (well, that and the initial morphogenic impression), you certainly know the various components that make the LSD experience what it is.
Click to expand...

Subjective experiences, even if they are from seasoned trippers, are just that.
 
mclaughlinr1 said:
i was under thew impression that "dirty acid" was a term used when referring to acid that has different than acid effects, e.g., staying up thirty plus hours. and it usually resulting in it being a research chemical.
Click to expand...

No, this is the classic discussion on purity of LSD. It has nothing to do with research chemicals being used as substitutes.
 
Last edited:
Have you tried TiHKAL yet? I'm sure it's under the LSD entry somewhere.

edit: here you go:
Let me mention in passing, that there are three stereoisomers possible for d-LSD. There are d-iso-LSD, l-LSD, and l-iso-LSD. The inversion of the stereochemistry of the attached diethylcarboxyamido group of d-LSD gives the diastereoisomer (d-iso-LSD) which is a frequent synthetic impurity of d-LSD itself. The corresponding optical antipodes l-LSD and l-iso-LSD are also known and have been tasted. All three are completely inactive: d-iso-LSD shows no psychological changes at an oral dose of 4 milligrams; l-LSD none at up to 10 milligrams orally; and l-iso-LSD none at 500 micrograms orally. These dramatic decreases in potency show both the stereoselectivity of the native LSD molecule in producing its central effects, and the LSD-free purity of these isomers.
Click to expand...
http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/tihkal/tihkal26.shtml
 
i put it in one word - Karma. ie the righteous cook will ensure all the prerequisites to eliminate the ojective qualitative confounds and 'charge' the batch to impart that certain elusive, as of yet unquantifiable, yet very palpable variable, which really contributes to, neigh, makes the cosmogenics of the true LSD experience...
Click to expand...

Nah, it's all down to the ratio of the 4 isomers and set & setting. A conciencious chemist will do their best to ensure the end product is as pure d-LSD as possible; after that storage conditions will have the most effect on the chemical make-up.

You can have a chemist with the best karma going, but unless he's shit hot at chromatographic separation of the isomers (and the other reaction products, of course), then the 'acid' produced will not be too wonderful

BTW I've always taken 'acid' to refer to the mixed isomer product as opposed to pure d-LSD
 
No, this is the classic discussion on purity of LSD. It has nothing to do with research chemicals being used as substitutes.
Click to expand...

...well i guess what i was trying to say was that i thought "dirty acid" didn't exist, and that it was just a term given ignorantly to other drugs. 8)
 
well yeah, I wouldnt deny the idea that D-Lsd is infact still found on one of the dirty "stained" hits. However, karma and or bad procedure will either disrupt the LSD or the person making it, one or the other. It still happened.

Yeah dirty acid exists. just keep in mind that the highs are very different and can train you for an experience that isnt actually LSD. so watch yourself....

I only had a truely awesome trip after 1 year of taking it, then stopping for a coupla months then running into THE HITS. Ill call them.. That was my day of awakenment. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top