• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Wtf is up with antidrug things saying you can smoke lsd :S

To keep things in perspective; While vapourisation may be possible as outlined, it doesn't necessarily equate to delivering an accurately measured dose. Unlike meth, where the dosage can vary from pipe to pipe without causing too much of a problem, LSD of course, is very potent, so any apparatus would need to be micro sized, and the amount used would need to be able to compensate for vapour condensing on the vessel walls, without the risk of delivering too much vapour. In light of these obstacles, it's doubtful a functional smoking device could be easily built.
 
wow this is sad when you cant even trust your goverment to give you accurate info. it reminds me of when the US goverment a few years ago came out with tv ad campaign saying ecstacy cause holes in your brain, even at one dose, wich was later found to be un true. The was a hour long special on abc with peter jennings called ecstacy rising wich touched on this issue. If the goverment is lying about that, how could you trust any info they give you.

phase dancer I wouldnt doubt your info to be true, there is many myths about lsd.
 
If you did try to vapourise lsd, the amount would be so small that either it would all re condense on your pipe (or watever ud use to be able to do this) or condense in your mouth, i doubt any at all would reach ur lungs, so it'd be pretty much like taking liquid.
 
Flinch said:
... i doubt any at all would reach ur lungs, so it'd be pretty much like taking liquid.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. I've heard reports of LSD and psilocybin being successfully smoked before - the problem is that it supposedly requires the substances to be in their pure form (a rarity in itself) and amounts many times larger than what you would take orally. Supposedly it kicks in very quickly, and generally isn't very pleasant.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, has anyone actually tried smoking a blotter? Seems like everyone is speaking from deep experience here. But somehow I have the feeling that there is actually no experience whatsoever in this thread and everyone just has opinions. Great way to advance research!!

I have smoked blotters. The effect isn't great and it's certainly not something you would bother with on a regular basis, but it is certainly active. The trip is very different though. It only lasts about 2 hours and in those 2 hours it fades in and out every few minutes. Quite entertaining really because you can be completely straight for 5 minutes and then pretty out of it for the next five minutes.... and back again. My friends all thought it was annoying while I thought it was entertaining.

Never smoked more than one blotter, so no idea if this is just a dosage thing.

Now go ahead and flame. Seems to be the BL way. I just wanted to make sure this is on record.

Oh, and I don't think the drug 'educators' claim the smokability on the basis of knowledge either. They are kinda like some of the other posters in this thread - having an uninformed opinion. Funny how we call the kettle black.
 
Whaaat? thats the 1st time ive ever heard anyone say its active at all smoking, and everything i know about lsd tells me its impossible, ive got a tab layin around and im tempted to try and smoke it, but yeah, i know 99% it wont do nethin lol
 
funny how you can be 99% certain even if you have no experience at all. seriously, not having a go at you, as you are at least prepared to try, but it is quite entertaining to watch this laborious process of (re)discovery.

I took a legal substance the other day that one person claimed to be active, yet he got shouted down at BL and other forums for posting his claim [after self dosing mind you]. I took that substance because I too did not really believe him, yet I would never be so presumptious and arrrogant to claim someone else's experience invalid. I am glad I did, because now there are two people in the world who know about its [rather strong] activity.

It makes me wonder just how open minded folks here really are. 18 years ago when I heard the discussion about smoked LSD the first time I didn't waste any time and had tried it within a week. These days people just sit in front of computers and ruminate their opinions it seems.
 
What is this legal thing your talking about? And im saying i dont think it would work based on the properties of the molecule, ill try it tonight i recon, ill post results.
 
I won't be sharing the name of that compound on BL because of the way the original poster was treated. I think the attitude that lead to how he was treated is endemic on BL and I feel such a community needs to learn the hard way. I haven't been on BL for a while, but coming back recently I suddenly find myself involved in 3 threads that deal with this sort of attitude and I feel that this is an indicator of a wider problem. The assumption that some molecules are inactive or some processes are impossible is only reasonable until faced with evidence to the contrary. I am well known and trusted on other forums under a different nic, but it is interesting for me to see first hand how people are treated if they don't have a long term reputation.

If you're really keen then have a look for a thread in the last 18 months or so [I didn't post in it].

Anyway, looking forward to your report. I found that no special precautions need to be taken. I am not a smoker, so I probably wouldn't have smoked the material all that hot and might have smoked it slowly, but some of the others simply punched it like any other cone. We used normal lighters [not butane torches] whichmight be significant due to the temp difference.

The material we used weren't full squares, but rather edge trimmings [equivalent to a square], so if you try to copy what we did then maybe cut the square into 1mm wide strips. From memory we smoked about 2 or 3 strips at a time then had a short break, then smoked some more, etc. We used a normal hash pipe with a small cone and a fine screen.
 
Why bother smoking it anyway? It works just fine when you put it in your mouth as a liquid... If you're too impatient for it to start I suggest you search for another experience
 
I don't think this discussion was about which method works best. Obviously smoking it is a total waste of time other than to prove the fact that it is possible. [unless of course someone find the on-again, off-again nature of smoked LSD attractive].

You however made another assumption... the fact that smoking LSD is done to bring it on faster. It was a long time ago, but I am pretty sure that it really wasn't all that much faster anyway.

Oh, and if everyone thought that new administration method are not worthwhile to explore then I guess they would never consider smoking DMT or salvia or mushrooms, all of which were not smoked until some idiot decided to do the futile thing and try a different admin method to what everyone else was doing ;). Shame on them for wasting everyone's time. LOL
Conform, conform, conform.
 
Well said Tabaluga, I completely agree. I was dismayed to see people claim smoking it to be "impossible", since I know people that have claimed to have smoked "crystal lsd" and received strong effects. Too strong, apparently, but thats probably because the smallest amount they could measure out was a tiny crystal. However, since this was second hand info, I can't be absolutely certain without having witnessed it myself (which I didn't).

That said, I can understand people assuming it doesn't work. I mean, just the mental imagine of putting a blotter on top of a cone, and then trying to smoke it and having this huge flame burning from the blotter, is probably enough to deter people from trying it. Most have probably also heard how "fragile" LSD is, with light sensitivity and storage in foil. This might also make people weary of even attempting smoking it.

I guess what it comes down to is how people worded some earlier posts. Replacing "smoking LSD is impossible" with "smoking LSD is probably possible but inefficient" would have avoided this.
 
Last edited:
A mate wanted the blotter so i decided to wait till i get some more. There cheap enough that im jst gonna do it to find out for myself. Till then, i think smoking dmt is a better option =) Will post a report sometime on the weekend or somethin
 
From memory LSD is decomposed by the insertion of a water molecule in the presence of UV energy. So, while storing LSD in aqueous solutions in clear bottles in the sun is not the smartest move, applying heat doesn't necessarily provide these specific conditions [quite the contrary] and hence should not be extrapolated as being reliably destructive.

I would also think that the commonly used tartrate salt probably provides some protection during heating, similarly to how the presence of ascorbates significantly protects psilocybin [and maybe even psilocin] during pyrolysis. Tartrates and ascorbates are used to prevent auto-oxidation of various tryptamines, including lysergic acid amides themselves.
 
tartrate melting point

Looking at the Merck data again, I previously stated the melting point for the free base. The tartrate salt melting point is 198-200 deg C. While it's been indicated by experienced posters that LSD does sublimate to some degree, it can also be reasonably expected that some decomposition will likely occur at these temperatures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top