I did give the patent number. I figured poeople could search that out easily enough, but apparently a mod did that for the lazy people and added the link to the bottom of my post. You won't find the text exactly as I gave it unless you view scans of the original patent because the text versions are all OCR and have errors in them. I corrected the errors in the part that I quoted so it matches the text in the scans.First, The onset of LSD can be anything from 10 minutes to 1 hour, I've even tried up to 2 hours for real effects.
And duration can be anything between 6 and 12 hours, with varying batches.
Why this is so isn't to be discussed here, because this topic has its own threads (and everybody has their own opinions about it, from polymorphism to set and setting)
Point is, we can't extrapolate anything what so ever from Si ingwe having had a 10 min come up once.......
I think that what we will see with 1-P-LSD vs LSD, is the same phenomenon we've seen with 4-AcO-DMT vs 4-HO-DMT.
Some people will swear they are feeling distinct subjective differences in the trip, while other people will feel that they are virtually indistinguishable. This also seems to have been the case with ALD-52 in the 60'ies.
jason7, it would be nice if you could supply a source for your quote.
I kind of agree with you there, but honestly, that's your experience, and other people are going to have other opinions/experiences. And as I said, there's other threads for that, so let us just let it end here so we can keep on topic. My point still stand, that we can't conclude anything on 1-P-LSD's pharmacology from SI Ingwes fast come up.In my experience with lysergic amides the form of dosing is extremely important for the onset time. With liquid dosage I usually come up withing 30 min, 45 max, while it takes me 1,5 - 2 h with blotters. Sugar cubes are somewhere in-between. With really high doses of LSD in solution (250-350 µg) I felt the first effects after 10 minutes! With 200 µg blotters it took at least 45...
I wasn't comparing it to 4-AcO/HO-DMT pharmacologically/chemically you misunderstand me. I just had a look in my crystal ball, and what I saw was that some people aren't going to be able to tell this apart from LSD, while others are going to swear they can feel a difference. Just like with psilocin/psilacetin. But we'll see about that in the coming months I might be wrong.I don't think 1P-LSD is a prodrug. It shouldn't be compared to 4-AcO/4-HO tryptamines because esters are WAY WAY easier to hydrolyse in vivo than amides. Just think of the diethylamide moiety in the molecule! However, it's long action might be partially explainable by some degree of hydrolysis in the 1-position. Whichever it is, I would really love to give this one a try. It sounds very promising...
You're making a huge logical jump, though. You don't have enough information to come to that conclusion.The patent specifically states that ALD-52 (they didn't use that name, but the chemical name) is 1/10th as toxic as LSD and has 2.5 times as much SSRI effect and doesn't cause hyperthermia but actually cools you down. Obviously, none of those differences would have been noted if it had simply turned into LSD in the body. Since Sandoz chemists are not known to be outright liars or imbeciles, I have to conclude that the 1-allkylamides do not turn into LSD in the human body.
Of all the RCS out there that people sell as acid I see no problem getting this instead of LSD. Sure it a crappy unethical thing to do to sell drugs posing as something else but compared to N-Benzyl-PEAs this is a treat just as most RC lysergamines, not to mention the profit margin really isn't that high so I'd doubt it would happen anyways.Sounds tp good to be true....i think the big problem is people will for sure be selling this as acid