|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 30 days
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: Chemiker]
#6409874 - 12/30/06 03:48 AM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I hope I've convinced everyone about the existence of crystal polymorphs and more importantly, that polymorphism is a regularly observed phenomenon.
If you want scientific evidence of crystal polymorphism, take a look at crystals of H2O. Apparently no two snowflakes are the same.
Since dealing with crystals is part of my job, I read a lot about crystals. Here's just one interesting quote I ran across:
The ability of a substance to crystallize in different crystal forms gives rise to polymorphism. There are reasons to believe that polymorphism is more the rule than the exception in crystals of small molecules (ice is the first example that comes to mind) and in macromolecules (polymorphism and crystal growth are major problems in protein structure determination by X-rays). We shall focus here on medium-size organic molecules, where polymorphism is fairly common, and limits to its occurrence are less restrictive than the experimental difficulties in its detection.
. . .
Polymorphism can be intriguing to the organic chemist, since it may not be at first clear whether different crystals are different compounds or just polymorphs of the same compound.
Gavezzotti, A. and Simonetta, M. Crystal Chemistry in Organic Solids. Chemical Reviews. 82, pp. 1 - 13. (1982)
|
World Spirit
PNW



Registered: 07/27/01
Posts: 9,817
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: Chemiker]
#6409927 - 12/30/06 04:42 AM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I just wanted to add a note about "clean" or "dirty" experiences.
Clean acid: The body feels euphoric The mind is endowed with revelation, wonder, beauty and is seeing the world with relaxation to some extent Your appetite is still intact and you can eat good food with great delight Music is easy to embrace You are more flexible with dealing with new situations/circumstances (in other words you're more comfortable and open about things)
Dirty acid: Your bones literally ache. Your stomach feels tight and kind of acidic (sort of like when you drink too much orange juice without a glass of water on the side). Your jaw and mouth are tense. In general, you are uptight and sometimes have to pace around to burn up the speedy energy. Tapping your foot on the ground really fast with one leg occurs. You feel more speedy than euphoric. The potential for revelation and awe are far insuperior. The comedown is like being asked to carry 145lbs of bricks on your back wherever you go and you're already totalled as it is. When you do come down (or wake up after getting at least some rest), you consider throwing the blotter away soas not to re-experience such a thing.
|
JAP
Stranger
Registered: 12/28/06
Posts: 5
|
|
......
Edited by JAP (01/01/07 05:10 PM)
|
sleepy
zZzZzZzZz


Registered: 01/17/05
Posts: 3,888
Loc:
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: Chemiker]
#6411585 - 12/30/06 08:44 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
chemiker, you said that crystals can form differently and randomly, so that means that each lsd batch, indeed each lsd molecule is slightly different,
but earlier you said that two chemists making LSD will make an exactly equal product? even if it doesn't have anything to do with the "state of mind," perhaps the LSD molecules of Owsley's batches were similar to eachother, and the LSD molecules of each batch are similar, and it just so happens that each batch has the "fingerprint" of the chemist, just like two people writing the same word will write it in slightly different ways.
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 30 days
|
|
Lets examine more stupidity from the "Recent LSD Prints" thread:
So, mushiemountain was explaining that he only experienced negative somatic symptoms from "lavender" crystal and puts it like this:
well afterwards i was told by someone that it was dipped in a solution from lavender crystal . . . the other tabs i have eaten have been from fluff, apparently. and i haven't had any discomfort at all with those.
That just sounds like an ad hoc explanation.
"Man, that last batch you got for me gave me a bad trip." ad hoc response, "Oh really man? Sorry about that, but I bought it from a friend of a friend who I don't know well. Later he told me it was from lavender crystal. Next time I'll get you some fluff."
Really though, I question the intelligence of someone who believes their dealer when they claim to know what type of crystal they were getting. Myths are some of the best ways to sell drugs.
SuperD says:
I ate one of those shiva prints last night and after my supplier told me they were 250ug each
After his supplier told him they were 250 ug each? Right. No possibility of the power of suggestion there. I also love how people know what the doses they're getting are. I always make sure to get 125.45 microgram hits. It's my favourite dose.
|
Koala Koolio
TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG

Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 7,752
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: Chemiker]
#6412292 - 12/30/06 11:35 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm not directing this towards any one person. Certainly neither of the two that you just mentioned... so please no one get offended because of some reason that you apparently do know but could never post about.
But way too many people seem to "know" the exact strength and crystal type of their blotter. Maybe some do. But no way is it even 10% of those claiming to know on here. Not accusing anyone of lying, only being fed BS by a dealer. (Again, some people will probably claim that they have a special circumstance they can't speak of. Cool. You're in the 1% or whatever it is that does know [probably less].).
The point is that a lot of people on the shroomery and in general make claims that they know. And as a whole, even considering the few exceptions that might exist, they absolutely don't.
-------------------- You're not like the others. You like the same things I do. Wax paper, boiled football leather... dog breath. We're not hitch-hiking anymore, we're riding!
|
SuperD
Cacti junky


Registered: 10/05/03
Posts: 6,648
Loc: The bridgesii bridge
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: Chemiker]
#6412319 - 12/30/06 11:46 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The person responsible for laying the blotter knows exactly how much goes into each hit. I can't even really comment on the 'power of suggestion' idea man. One hit was all I needed to go where I needed to go, what more needs suggesting?
--------------------
   D Manoa said: I need to stop spending all my money on plants and take up a cheaper hobby, like heroin. Looking for Rauhocereus riosaniensis seeds or live specimen(s), me if you have any for trade
|
Koala Koolio
TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG

Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 7,752
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: SuperD]
#6412332 - 12/30/06 11:54 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
"The person responsible for laying the blotter knows exactly how much goes into each hit"
And a lot of people here claim to know the exact strength of their blotter. Surely more than the number that know the person who made the sheets.
-------------------- You're not like the others. You like the same things I do. Wax paper, boiled football leather... dog breath. We're not hitch-hiking anymore, we're riding!
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 30 days
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: JAP]
#6412344 - 12/30/06 11:59 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
JAP said: impurities. This is from the reference you provided: Some papers I refer to are out of date and I might only be referring to another section of the paper. I refer to a lot of papers, some of which have sections that are out of date. I didn't quote directly, did I? I referred to something else in that paper. Also, take a look at what you're quoting. I think you're misunderstanding it. That isn't referring to LSD from blotter. It's referring to samples of LSD and metabolites obtained from human urine. It is also specifically mentioning the fact that LSD and metabolites are in such low concentrations in body fluids. A blotter, by comparison, has quite a high concentration of LSD. The problem with biological fluid samples is that they have really low concentrations and LSD will adsorb to the silica, so for the really low concentrations of samples from bodily fluids, yes you need a derivative (but this has nothing to do with the mass spectral determination). Other combo mass spec techniques don't display this problem and don't need derivitization. I am interested in blotter, crystal, etc. and I think it's clear that we have been talking about those kinds of samples and not biological samples. In some cases when analysing the samples from urine by GC/MS, it's not the sample that is directly derivatives If derivitization for GC/MS is always necessary even for blotter, at least that means we might be able to call bullshit on the guy who said underground labs do GC/MS. I apologize. You might be right. I know that I seem hostile sometiemes but other times I don't pay attention fully and I missed the fact that were saying GC/MS and not just MS. Oh but sometimes it isn't the sample that's directlt derivatized but the reagent is added to the inside of the column, so it can be easy to miss that they're making the TMS of LSD. The reason I mentioned MS being a rare skill is because someone in another thread said that underground labs test purity by GC/MS and I said that was ridiculous. It doesn't matter if MS is easy to learn, because not many people have access to an MS or even know how to operate one, so that's why the comment was relevant. There’s numerous references on using TLC combined with densitometry for quantitative analysis. I'm just guessing here, but did you actually read paper or did you find the reference to it off Erowid and come here and repeat? I recall once being asked about that specific paper, though I didn't realize until you provided me with the reference. Instead of trying to jump around my questions, why not either just answer them or admit that you don't know the answer. If you’re skeptical of doing TLC densitometry with an ordinary desktop scanner, there’s this reference:I'm not asking you for a shitload of references. I'll take your word for it. If you say that, "Yes, the analysis is quantitative and distinguishes between LSD, iso-LSD and other lysergic acid derivatives." Then I'd take your word for it. I asked a few simple questions. Why are you pouring references down my throat? I don't really care to read the papers, I'd be more than happy to take your word for the answers. You're just making me think that you haven't read the papers. Now, however, I guess I'll read the papers and report back (perhaps doing your work for you? I don't know). Also, does this conclusively identify the impurities? ?
It does a decent enough job without requiring an instrument that costs as much as one or two BMWs and a chemistry degree to run.That doesn't answer my question. A comment you dismissed as "nonsense" and "simply incorrect".It is nonsense. That paper is 10 years old. What they say about derivitization being necessary is not true anymore. Yeah, and the bulk of them will describe derivatizing samples to promote their volatility and detection.Maybe, maybe not. I reject your flat out assertion. Even if this is true, that doesn't mean that it is still neccessary to do so. I could find hundreds of papers from 80 years ago that would state that it is neccessary to try synthesizing a chemical and chemically degrading it, in order to determine it's structure. That doesn't mean that it's still true, since we have NMR (and other tools) now. Reviews are only as good as the people who write them. That's a cheesy cop-out. I’ve listed my referencesDid you actually read any of them? My contention is…again…that GC/MS based methods generally use derivatization of compounds of this class. Over ten years ago, that may have been true. Within the last ten years, that's not true. Whether or not what you're saying is true will depend on the relative number of papers about GC/MS characterization of LSD within those time periods. If most of the literature on this subject is more than 10 years old, then certainly what you're saying is correct, but you'd just be ignoring the fact that better methods have been developed. I’m suggesting a viable alternative for LSD that does not require using modern equipment, and is therefore within reach of anyone reading this forum.And I'm asking you simple questions about what those techniques can determine, but you don't seem to be able to answer them. If you could answer them, then we could maybe mike a nice like chart of pros and cons of each method, but instead you seem to think that I'm skeptical of what you're saying. I'm just asking for clarification. Read all the papers I’ve referenced.Why? Because you haven't? Your questions are answered.Why can't you simply answer them? The limits on quantitation are certainly in the microgram range with a limit of detection in the sub-microgram range.Hooray! Something specific! Maybe you've actually read one of them. I thought what we wanted to know was the relative amounts of D-LSD and iso-LSD and what other impurities may be present.I'm interested in any impurities. If you're that curious, read the papers. I intend to. I am curious and that's why I asked you, but it's looking pretty obviously like you haven't read these papers. Was it a GC/MS technique that doesn’t require derivatization because of the crappy way these compound chromatograph in the gas phase? Why don't you read it and find out.  Ardrey, R. E., and Moffat, A. C., J . Forensic Sci. Soc., 1979, 19, 253. sorry but I feel fucking terrible. when I first read your thing about GC/MS, I was thinking about the MS and not at all about GC. that's not why I feel bad. shitty day. week. year.
Edited by Chemiker (12/31/06 12:51 AM)
|
SuperD
Cacti junky


Registered: 10/05/03
Posts: 6,648
Loc: The bridgesii bridge
|
|
Your point has been taken. I'm not going to defend a supplier I've never met in person. One hit got me where I needed to go That's all I'm saying.
--------------------
   D Manoa said: I need to stop spending all my money on plants and take up a cheaper hobby, like heroin. Looking for Rauhocereus riosaniensis seeds or live specimen(s), me if you have any for trade
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 30 days
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: sleepy]
#6412359 - 12/31/06 12:08 AM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sleepy said: chemiker, you said that crystals can form differently and randomly, so that means that each lsd batch [is slightly different]
No, not true. Polymorphism doesn't mean that the crystals can take on any arbitrary form. When I say that crystals can exhibit polymorphism and which polymorph appears can seem to be random, this doesn't at all mean that all batches are different.
If pure LSD tartrate exhibits, for example, three polymorphs, then there are only three crystal forms of pure LSD.
When it comes to LSD + impurities, yes, then perhaps every batch could be slightly (or majorly) different in structure, which is why I object to throwing around the categories as though they were all the same thing.
indeed each lsd molecule is slightly different
No. That is false.
but earlier you said that two chemists making LSD will make an exactly equal product?
A crystal is an arrangement of molecules. Two chemists using the same synthetic procedure will make the same molecule (e.g. LSD), but a slight difference in the crystallization can result in different crystal forms. Or the crystal forms could be the same.
Are you clear on the difference between crystals and molecules? A crystal is made up of molecules. Different crystals can be made up from the same molecule.
even if it doesn't have anything to do with the "state of mind," perhaps the LSD molecules of Owsley's batches were similar to eachother
Ok. You obviously aren't clear on what a molecule is. There are only 4 forms of LSD molecules, but only one of them is active (referred to as D-LSD). What we call "acid" is D-LSD. All D-LSD molecules are the same. By definition, Owsley's LSD molecules had damn well better be the same. If Owsley's LSD molecules weren't the same, then some of those molecules simply would be LSD (or they would be inactive isomers, like iso-LSD).
and it just so happens that each batch has the "fingerprint" of the chemist
That's really really unlikely. Like, walking through a solid wall unlikely.
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 30 days
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: SuperD]
#6412370 - 12/31/06 12:12 AM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
SuperD said: The person responsible for laying the blotter knows exactly how much goes into each hit.
I doubt it. I really don't think underground labs do the kind of quality control that would be necessary. I'm sure that someone at least weighs a certain abount of product and divides it up appropriately to get 250 ug of product on each blotter. I just find it really hard to believe that someone is also analysing the absolute purity of what they lay out.
Also, I simply have a hard time believing that you know the guy who knows the guy who lays the blotter. Maybe you do, but when people claim to know their LSD doses, the bullshit alarms go off in my head. I could be wrong, but so you could. You can't rule out power of suggestion. I can't rule out that you're an LSD chemist yourself.
|
JAP
Stranger
Registered: 12/28/06
Posts: 5
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: Chemiker]
#6412381 - 12/31/06 12:17 AM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
.....
Edited by JAP (01/01/07 05:13 PM)
|
SuperD
Cacti junky


Registered: 10/05/03
Posts: 6,648
Loc: The bridgesii bridge
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: Chemiker]
#6412409 - 12/31/06 12:28 AM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chemiker said: SuperD said: The person responsible for laying the blotter knows exactly how much goes into each hit.
I doubt it. I really don't think underground labs do the kind of quality control that would be necessary. I'm sure that someone at least weighs a certain abount of product and divides it up appropriately to get 250 ug of product on each blotter. I just find it really hard to believe that someone is also analysing the absolute purity of what they lay out.
Also, I simply have a hard time believing that you know the guy who knows the guy who lays the blotter. Maybe you do, but when people claim to know their LSD doses, the bullshit alarms go off in my head. I could be wrong, but so you could. You can't rule out power of suggestion. I can't rule out that you're an LSD chemist yourself.
Whether or not the product they lay is pure or not was not in question. I agree on all levels that the quality control factor is not there mainly due to the legality of LSD. And by all means, please do rule me out as an LSD chemist because an LSD chemist I am not.
--------------------
   D Manoa said: I need to stop spending all my money on plants and take up a cheaper hobby, like heroin. Looking for Rauhocereus riosaniensis seeds or live specimen(s), me if you have any for trade
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 30 days
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: JAP]
#6412438 - 12/31/06 12:58 AM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JAP said: Sorry, I must have missed it....
What exactly has changed in the instrumental technique of GC/MS in the last ten years that makes my statement nonsense?
Nothing, but to say that it's a garbage technique is fucking ridiculous. How difficult is it to make the TMS derivative of something? Add a little trimethylsilylchloride? Wow. Or, use a variation on the technique, perhaps a different capillary. I don't know if this is done in GC/MS but it is in capillary electrophoresis. Apparently
You know, all I wanted fas for you to answer the questions I had about the DMAB technique. I don't want to read 15 papers when you could have just as easily given me a one sentence response for each question I had. You should know as well as I do that reading 15 scientific papers is a time consuming process.
Anyway, yes, you've convinced me that I'm wrong about the GCMS thing. Well, almost. The articles don't say anything about illicit doses, like blotter or microdots. Urine or other bodily fluids could be a special case due to such low concentrations, but I can't find any GC/MS of just doses, so I'll assume you're right.
Aren't you glad that I'm a scientist? I might be an arrogant fuck but at least being a scientists makes me used to being wrong. You're right. I was in error. I deeply apologize and I feel really bad about it.
Edited by Chemiker (12/31/06 03:09 AM)
|
sleepy
zZzZzZzZz


Registered: 01/17/05
Posts: 3,888
Loc:
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: Chemiker]
#6415216 - 01/01/07 10:10 AM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chemiker said:
Quote:
sleepy said: chemiker, you said that crystals can form differently and randomly, so that means that each lsd batch [is slightly different]
No, not true. Polymorphism doesn't mean that the crystals can take on any arbitrary form. When I say that crystals can exhibit polymorphism and which polymorph appears can seem to be random, this doesn't at all mean that all batches are different.
If pure LSD tartrate exhibits, for example, three polymorphs, then there are only three crystal forms of pure LSD.
When it comes to LSD + impurities, yes, then perhaps every batch could be slightly (or majorly) different in structure, which is why I object to throwing around the categories as though they were all the same thing.
indeed each lsd molecule is slightly different
No. That is false.
but earlier you said that two chemists making LSD will make an exactly equal product?
A crystal is an arrangement of molecules. Two chemists using the same synthetic procedure will make the same molecule (e.g. LSD), but a slight difference in the crystallization can result in different crystal forms. Or the crystal forms could be the same.
Are you clear on the difference between crystals and molecules? A crystal is made up of molecules. Different crystals can be made up from the same molecule.
even if it doesn't have anything to do with the "state of mind," perhaps the LSD molecules of Owsley's batches were similar to eachother
Ok. You obviously aren't clear on what a molecule is. There are only 4 forms of LSD molecules, but only one of them is active (referred to as D-LSD). What we call "acid" is D-LSD. All D-LSD molecules are the same. By definition, Owsley's LSD molecules had damn well better be the same. If Owsley's LSD molecules weren't the same, then some of those molecules simply would be LSD (or they would be inactive isomers, like iso-LSD).
and it just so happens that each batch has the "fingerprint" of the chemist
That's really really unlikely. Like, walking through a solid wall unlikely.
you said yourself
"Another thing I forget to mention is pretty important when it comes to different forms of LSD crystals having different effects. It is well known in the pharmaceutical industry that different crystal polymorphs of the same drug can have different pharmacological effects. Some crystals might dissolve more rapidly than others, which affects their distribution in the body. Some crystals might not dissolve as well as others, which can decrease their biological availability. The irony of this is that it's possible for a 100% pure crystal of a drug in one crystal form to result in less drug entering the body than a less pure crystal in a different form! This probably goes against all conventional wisdom that "LSD is LSD is LSD." It's entirely possible that some crystal polymorphs of LSD aren't absorbed by the body as easily or quickly as others. "
i would go further to say that perhaps each drug receptor in brain could be slightly different as well, increasing the variability. i know what a molecule is, and i know what a crystal is. what you were saying is that different crystal forms have different effects, and since the sythensization process can result in different crystal polymorphs, perhaps OWSLEY's process created a certain type of polymorph more often than others.
now try to stay with me here as i try to simplify...
which chemist creates acid which has more people say "i had a good experience"
because at the end of the day, even if you use complicated equipment to find out the chemical composition of each individual molecule of Acid, it's easier to say that the most people like Sandoz acid, many people like owsley acid, and on down the line people dislike the less pure acid (which can be identified by the color of the crystal, white being the most pure and all colors being impure). if you have a good experience with a substance, then good.
i think its pretty brash to think you understand exactly this whole deal... and if you disagree consider this. when acid first came out it was all made by one source, the sandoz corporation, and it was distributed in 1 gram vials. people could take acid without knowing which batch it came from and recognize a difference. this acid was all of similar purity
|
Koala Koolio
TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG

Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 7,752
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: sleepy]
#6415279 - 01/01/07 10:51 AM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
"which chemist creates acid which has more people say "i had a good experience"
I think Chemiker's entire point is: The acid which is said to be the most pure/clean by the dealer to the buyer, often times.
"it's easier to say that the most people like Sandoz acid, many people like owsley acid, and on down the line people dislike the less pure acid (which can be identified by the color of the crystal, white being the most pure and all colors being impure). if you have a good experience with a substance, then good."
You can give someone some 99% pure acid and tell them it was some black, horrible goo that was left at the bottom of a flask. 40% pure at the most. Let's see how they like it. Let's see if they don't have horrible back spasms and pains, or some other ridiculous side effect.
-------------------- You're not like the others. You like the same things I do. Wax paper, boiled football leather... dog breath. We're not hitch-hiking anymore, we're riding!
|
TheHateCamel
Research &Development -DBK
Registered: 01/31/03
Posts: 15,738
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: Chemiker]
#6415579 - 01/01/07 01:42 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Debunking the myth.
Excellent.
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 30 days
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: JAP]
#6415688 - 01/01/07 02:23 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JAP said: Only a noob would try and test the purity of LSD with a GC/MS. The compound and the various impurities are not volatile or stable enough to get out of the injection port unless you derivatize them.
I think I should take back my apology to some extent, because what you said here *is* nonsense.
Derivitization in GC/MS is required because the capillary in the gas chromatograph will absorb some LSD, which is a problem when working with biological samples due to such low concentrations. The way you've stated it here, you're saying that derivitization has to do with the injection into the mass spectrometer, which is not the case (and which was what I felt was nonsense).
Furthermore, when I said something about how it was possible to get good mass spectra of LSD, you didn't clarify and say anything about how the problem had to do with the gas chromatograph.
I'm starting to think that you probably read that one paper I referred to and jumped to a conlcusion about the nature of the problem.
So, technically, GC/MS requires derivitization of LSD and metabolites when working with biological samples (street doses may be different). Derivitization is necessary due to adsorption on the capillary. Another solution would be to treat the capillary or use a special capillary. Derivitization has nothing to do with the mass spectra, as you indicated.
What you said was indeed nonsense. You only happened to be right later because your comments were general.
Edited by Chemiker (01/01/07 02:35 PM)
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 30 days
|
Re: LSD crystal purity [Re: sleepy]
#6415710 - 01/01/07 02:34 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sleepy said: and it just so happens that each batch has the "fingerprint" of the chemist
That's really really unlikely. Like, walking through a solid wall unlikely.
you said yourself
Saying that different pharmaceutical crystals of the same compound can have different effects doesn't mean that all drugs have different effects from different crystals. I mentioned this as an illustration of all of the unknowns. I do have reason to believe that LSD would not exhibit this behaviour (i.e. to the extent that any specific batch could be identified by subjective effects).
There's no need to quote me. I know what I said.
i would go further to say that perhaps each drug receptor in brain could be slightly different as well
Polymorphism in receptors is known, though I don't specifically know about 5-HT2A. However, this has nothing to do with the drug itself, does it? This just adds another variable, so thanks for mentioning it. You're absolutely right. This implies that different people could respond to the exact same substance in different ways.
i know what a molecule is, and i know what a crystal is.
Well, based on the way you put it, that each LSD molecule could be slightly different, made it seem otherwise. If you knew what a molecule was then you wouldn't be able to say that perhaps each of the same molecule is slightly different.
what you were saying is that different crystal forms have different effects
No, I wasn't. I was saying that different crystal forms of some drugs can have different effects, not that they necessarily do.
and since the sythensization process can result in different crystal polymorphs, perhaps OWSLEY's process created a certain type of polymorph more often than others.
That is indeed plausible. What I don't think is plausible is that it result in an LSD experience with a characteristic ("figerprint") effect.
because at the end of the day, even if you use complicated equipment to find out the chemical composition of each individual molecule of Acid, it's easier to say that the most people like Sandoz acid
If I saw evidence that people actually liked one form better than another, then I'd accept that. The simple fact is that I've never seen anyone who's claimed knowledge of one type being better than another being able to account for the variables (and I never see anyone trying it blind).
That is to say, all of the claims I've seen about one type of crystal or dose being better than another are essentially groundless or have deep methodological problems attached to those claims..
i think its pretty brash to think you understand exactly this whole deal... and if you disagree consider this.
If that's what you think then you aren't paying attention. I think I've clarified what my position on this is a number of times. I do not believe that the crystal terminology thrown around on these forums is valid. That is, I do not believe that the conclusions about each different crystal type are correct. What I'm doing is giving plausible reasons to suspect that the terminology and claims about such things as "amber", "fluff", etc. is nonsense. I am not saying that I exactly understand the whole deal, so DO NOT TRY SAYING THAT I DID.
people could take acid without knowing which batch it came from and recognize a difference.
If you could provide me with credible evidence of this, then I would accept it.
Edited by Chemiker (01/01/07 03:40 PM)
|
|