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Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information.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

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs?
#7602486 - 11/06/07 12:35 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It has come to my attention that there are many people who are ignorant about the capabilities of molecules in chemistry. Many people seem to hold to the idea that lsd is lsd, ,dmt is dmt, and that they are always exactly the same molecularly.
It's frustrating for me to try to address such a view point, as I am not a chemist, but I have done research, I have been to drug treatment several times and been tought about drugs and how they work on the body.
In nature, a plant which produces an alkaloid has a complex set of instructions in it's dna which consistently gives it the same instructions (unless damaged) to create a certain molecule. Man is not so fortunate. Man, even with all his intelligence, does not have the pharmacutical capabilities as a plant. He does not have the same degree of environment for stabilization, consistency. A man can forget certain steps in synthesization, while a plant, not having a mind, can never forget.
Molecules can be very complex things.
Here is a molecule of lsd-25.

There are four types of isomers of lsd-25. Only one of them is active, but that is not the end of the story at all.
Quote:
(1906 - ) Albert Hofmann graduated from the University of Zurich and joined Sandoz Pharmaceuticals in 1927. In 1938, he synthesized many different variations of LSD (d-Lysergic Acid Diethylamide)from a fungus that grows on diseased rye kernels, ergot (Known as a traditional abortifactant, and as the cause of St. Anthony's fire, a disease which causes fingers and toes to blacken before falling off.) The sample batches of LSD were shelved and their psychedelic properties went undiscovered for seven years until April 16th, 1943 when the 37-year-old Hofmann accidentally absorbed a miniscule amount of the 25th variation of LSD through his skin. He felt slightly dizzy and figured that he was coming down with a cold, so he took the day off and went home, where he experienced a psychedelic reverie - "An uninterrupted stream of fantastic images of extraordinary plasticity and vividness and accompanied by an intense kaleidoscopic play of colors." Three days later, at 4:20 pm, Hofmann purposely ingested 250 micrograms of LSD-25 to confirm that it indeed was the substance that produced the profound changes in his consciousness. His life (and millions of others) was changed forever on that day. Hofmann has been studying psychedelics and consciousness ever since.
http://www.streettech.com/bcp/BCPgraf/Glossary/gloss2.html
So there it is, in very clear language.
I seem to be having the same problem as this person here:
Quote:
I. THE GOSPEL
In reading alt.drugs.* and the literature on LSD in ftp.hyperreal.com, it is clear that there has emerged a central dogma about LSD purity (and quality). It holds that all acid in the form of blotters is in effect indistinguishable from perfectly manufactured LSD-25. Persons suggesting that there may be variations in quality are derided and told to read the FAQ (holy scripture). The Gospel appears to be based on the following syllogism, and backed up by empirical evidence found in the file lsd.data. Subjective evidence supporting or opposing the Gospel is considered worthless given the importance of set and setting in the LSD experience.
A. The Syllogism
The syllogism on which the Gospel is based goes something like this:
Given that: 1) A typical blotter can only hold about 200 ug of drug material. 2) The d isomer of LSD (LSD-25) is the only drug which is psychoactive in such quantities. Therefore: 3) All illicit 'acid' packaged in blotter form owes all of its psychoactive effects to LSD-25 and thus any difference in subjective or physical effects are entirely due to difference in dose, set, or setting.
I intend to indulge in the heresy of attempting to 'refute' this fundamental tenet of the Gospel, which I will also refer to as 'the Doctrine'.
Here's a question for you people who think I am spreading disinformation about lsd and other synthesized drugs.
Quote:
Question:
What happens when you substitute the hydrogens on any of the various positions of the lysergic backbone with some other element or compound?
It's different! That's the answer!
Quote:
This distribution of effects may be highly modal and centralized, with the vast majority of acid available at a given time having very similar effects, perhaps even comming from only a few sources; and this may give users who have only sampled acid for a few years the impression that it's all the same, and thus little reason to doubt it's authenticity or quality.
However, virtually any connoisseur of acid who has a discerning mind and a good memory, and has sampled illicit offerings for several decades (starting in the 60's or early 70's) knows that quality is a very real and important issue. I will leave it to the reader to seek out the opinions of veterans of the the first psychedelic era.
Quote:
: What lsd.data Proves
The analysis results in lsd.data proves that the vast majority of alleged LSD samples analyzed in 1973 and 1974 tested positive for LSD, and did not test positive for whatever other drugs they were testing for. Relevant questions include: How selective were the LSD identification tests used? and How many other drugs were tested for? In any case, based on numerous reports, I believe most of the acid available during those years was of high quality and was similar if not identical to LSD-25. The consistency of quality didn't start to plummet until the mid-1970s, due in part to restricted availability of chemicals required for synthesis. A recent post (arguing in favor of the Doctrine) is instructive.
: > In the 60s, it never seemed that certain charachteristics were assigned to > different batches. Acid was acid. Only when printed blotters really > started taking off in the late 70s (replacing pills, microdots, windowpane, > etc) did people start giving charachteristics to blotter.
I want to make a point that I think many people are ignorant of. Many people do not know what designer drugs are it seems. If they understood what drug analogs are, and how molecules can change and even be extremly unstable (such as lsd-25) they would not be so confident to try and tell me I am ignorant, that lsd is always just lsd.
from wikipedia:
Quote:
Designer drug
is a term used to describe psychoactive drugs which are created (or marketed, if they had already existed) to get around existing drug laws by modifying their molecular structures to varying degrees. [1]
A designer drug is not just some drug mixed with another drug to fool someone. A designer drug is a synthetic drug that is analogous to a known drug but has been altered in it's molecular structure, so that it is different, but still similarly active.
Molecules can be altered. Entire molecular chains can be added. In cases of isomers, as structural isomers, there are a number of different ways the molecule can be arranged differently, yet still be the same "type" of molecule. The fact there is even several basic isomers to lsd is blatantly obvious to this fact!
In the case of lsd, there are LSD ANALOGUES. These are compound which are anagalous to lsd-25, they are similar in form and may even be in function, but they are not exactly the same.
If anyone tells you that none of these analogues are active like lsd, they are LYING TO YOU.
One example is ald-52:
Quote:
ALD-52 or N-acetyl-LSD, is a chemical analogue of LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide). It was originally discovered by Albert Hofmann but was not widely studied until the rise in popularity of psychedelics in the 1960s.
In TiHKAL, Shulgin touches briefly on ALD-52 in entry 26, LSD. His writings are vague, second hand accounts, saying doses in the 50-175µg range have resulted in various conclusions. One found that there was less visual distortion than with LSD and it seems to produce less anxiety and was somewhat less potent than LSD. Another report claimed it was more effective in increasing blood pressure. Yet another could not tell them apart.
It has the same characteristics as LSD, but supposedly "without the anxiety, tenseness, and other problems inherent to it".
It is possible ALD-52 was the active chemical in the "Orange Sunshine" acid available during the Summer of Love. [citation needed]
One of the underground chemist's labs reportedly made ALD-52, and was shut down by the police, and the indivduals involved were arrested and prosecuted. This resulted in the first drug analogue trial, where the chemists claimed they did nothing wrong producing ALD-52, because LSD was the illicit drug. However, as the prosecution claimed, there were problems with such rationale, firstly, ALD-52 undergoes hydrolysis readily to LSD, and secondly the synthesis of ALD-52 required LSD (this was based on the methods available in the scientific literature at the time). [citation needed]
Here is another example. This is taken from a discussion on lsd analogues from erowid:
Quote:
: While we're on the subject of LSD analogues, I understand that replacing : the methyl group on nitrogen 6 with ethyl, allyl or propyl results in : compounds of similar, or even higher (by a factor of 2-3) potency. Is : this right? I'm pretty sure I've actually looked up the paper, but of : course it was just a glance at it. So, is that right?
I have seen that too. The reference was posted along with a reference to the JACS article on sythesis of lysergic acid methyl ester from L-tryptophan and some article on the synthesis of LSD from LSA using POCl3. I think the post is available for FTP.
: I find it interesting that the LSD molecule is so sensitive to substitution. : There aren't many substitutions that will retain activity (just a couple : of types, as compared with the psychedelic phenethylamine family where you : can do just tons of stuff). It must be fitting into that receptor pocket : really nicely. Especially the diethylamine group. I understand just : about any other substitution pattern there pretty much abolishes activity. : Hmm. I wonder if you replaced some of the -H's on those two ethyl groups : with -F's... That would keep the size about the same, but would change the : charge distribution. Has it been tried? -F for -H is supposed to be a : fun substitution in bioactive molecules, often modifying activity since : it's the same size (roughly) as -H, but is a lot harder for enzymes to : take off. Apparently monofluoroacetic acid is one of the most generally : toxic substances known (i.e. bad for most life forms) because it gets into : some important pathway (related to carbon oxidation, Kreb's cycle?) and : totally lalala it all to ***.
There are other LS amides that _are_ active at dosages less than 20x that of LSD including ALD-52, d-LS morpholide (20% LSD activity), 1-N-methyl LSD (40% activity), d-LS dimethylamide (10%), d-LS ethylamide (5%) and d-(1-N-methyl-LS-pyrrolidide) (7%) I think research into fluroLSDs has been a bit limited (I certainly havent seen any in my wandering, and it being a fairly notorious sheduled drug must put a bit of a damper on human trials..) It is, however, a good idea.. Does anyone have information on the breakdown path of LSD, I think it is metabolised by MAO. Certainly MAOIs increase LSD potency.
: Also, -Cl lies somewhere between -H and -CH3 in size (or so I'm told) so : making of the ethyl groups a 2-chloroethyl group wouldn't be quite as : bad size-wise as making it a propyl group (which apparently abolishes : activity). Of course, 2-chloroethyl ethyl amine would polymerize/cyclize : nicely. Maybe it wouldn't be too easy to work with, so a different
sure looks that way..
: synthesis might be required rather than just using a different amine in : the amidation step. But I don't really know what I'm talking about, I'm : just throwing out ideas.
you and me both 
Quote:
: I find it interesting that the LSD molecule is so sensitive to substitution. : There aren't many substitutions that will retain activity (just a couple : of types, as compared with the psychedelic phenethylamine family where you : can do just tons of stuff).
Molecules have the capability for substitution, for rearrangement, for addition of molecular components, even to the degree that the original molecule remains, but another chain is added. This is my understanding of organic chemistry.
And it is foolish for anyone to think that dmt is always dmt, that lsd is always lsd, that chemical decomposition or problems in synthesis cannot alter the structure of the chemical, so that it is altered minutely yet still active. Lsd is an example, and I was using it in another thread about dmt. As pointed out above, lsd is very sensetive molecule. But there are other drug molecules with greater number of analogues and ability of substitution etc.
And in synthesizing drugs, it could be altered into another active chemical even, that is not analogous, but could be potentially deadly. This is not a scare tactic. This is reality.
It is the commonly accepted wisdom that lsd is just lsd, and any differences in the trip is simply due to set, setting and dosage. THIS IS WRONG!
And if people understood how dangerous designer drugs can be, ( look at china white) they would not listen this disinformation heeded to out of ignorance and fear.
I have done lsd, and both experiences were greatly different. One was lavender acid, the other I don't know what kind. Noone can tell me it was just set and setting. They were both remarkably different. Lavender acid causes you to burst out in a huge grin that you cannot get rid of. And other acid I have tried did not feel the same way. My setting changed consistently throughout my experiences with lsd, and attesting difference to dose cannot affect such markedly wide variations in different types of lsd. And there are certainly others that agree with me!
In the 60's, lsd was pretty much uniform. The same is not true today. Drugs is produced under many different environments, using different precursors, and is not necessarily the same molecule at all.
Furthermore, there are in fact active chemicals that could potentially be added to lsd, contrary to popular knowledge.
BQuote:
lotters vary in size, some weighing up to several milligrams in weight, and I have seen blotters that were saturated with added materials. I will examine (2) and (3) together.
2) Only the d isomer of LSD is active in such quantity 3) All illicit 'acid' packaged in blotter form owes all of its psychoactive effects to LSD-25 and thus any difference in subjective or physical effects are entirely due to difference in dose, set, or setting.
Not true. 1: Several other *known* drugs are active in such quantities. Here are a few, listed with typical psychoactive doses: drug dose (ug) ---- --------- LSD 100-1000 nicotine 300 scopolamine 500 atropine 500 carbachol 200 aminopentamide 500 colchicine 100 fentanyl 100 etorphine 100 resperine 250 Some of these drugs are very cheap and easy to obtain, such as socpolamine and atropine. Even methamphetamine is active in doses as low as 1 mg. 2: LSD-25 may potentiate other materials that are normally inactive. Even minute ammounts of amphetamine can significantly potentiate LSD, and change the quality of the effect. The same may be true of other lysergic acid derivatives and by-products in a blotter. 3: All the discussion I have seen about psychoactive by-products and residues in blotters has focused on known such known products as the 4 isomers of LSD, variations on the anide group, known lysergic amines, etc. The information about these chemicals appears to be based on assays of extraction and synthesis products based on high-quality processes using materials and reagents of pharmaceutical quality. What goes on in illicit drug labs may be an entirely different story.
So who's spreading disinformation? Not me! And before you go take that hit of whatever, remember lsd in the words of erowid " is the best known and most researched psychedelic."
And yet noone knows, after almost 70 years how lsd exactly works in the brain!
Quote:
Q: I would like to know if you guys could tell me what happens, physically, to your body when you take LSD. What is the chemistry that happens in the brain? Are there any physical effects elsewhere in the body? If you could, please site your sources.
A: Nobody knows exactly how LSD works. It binds to serotonin receptors in the brain, but it is unknown how this translates into a psychedelic trip. LSD has very little effects on the rest of the body. Much more detail can be found in our LSD Vault or in books such as the excellent "Trips" by Cheryl Pellerin and Chapter 7 of Drugs and the Brain by Solomon Snyder.
And this casts incredible light on the dangers of the pharmacutical industry. It is no wonder that these drugs which are created through ignorant experimentation would be so incredibly dangerous and cause so many deaths! It is no wonder they are so much more dangerous and unpredictable than the natural drugs God has created for us to use.
Whoever takes synthetic drugs is just a guinea pig for the underground drug market and the pharmacutical industry, Neither of which is readily accountable to the general public. Neither of which really care about your health with understanding. If they did they would not make these drugs.
And the more drugs are pumped out, the more power they are given. And as the line between natural and synthetic drugs becomes more and more indistinguishable, the more natural drugs will as a natural consequence, be controlled and persecuted by fear driven ignorant masses, as they put their minds and lives in the hands of those who wish to take advantage of them, who do not know the truth. And I believe this natural consequence has already happened.
Edited by jonathan_206 (11/06/07 07:46 PM)
|
boomer q
Comrade General



Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 1,091
Loc: Dirty Jersey
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
#7602490 - 11/06/07 12:37 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
thanks for clearing that up
-------------------- I got bags of funk and i sell em by the tons
|
Dave Bowman
Albert Hoffmans Apprentice




Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 2,104
Loc: Your Imagination
Last seen: 3 months, 23 days
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: boomer q]
#7602495 - 11/06/07 12:38 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Very well written.
Good read, thanks!
|
cpw1971
Mr

Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 5,611
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
#7602559 - 11/06/07 12:53 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
sure change a molecule in lsd and its no longer lsd now take a hit of the same batch of lsd on different days and you will get a different experience. set and setting CAN change you experience. for example try it on a beach and the next time try it in a hospital where the people are dying in the halls.
it even comes down to what you ate that day.
|
Apollyphelion
Dungeon Master/Princess(1009)


Registered: 03/15/07
Posts: 16,757
Loc: Festival of Deaths
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
#7602564 - 11/06/07 12:54 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Awesome post, brother!
--------------------
"I'm looking at you looking at it" SUBSCRIBE TO MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL PLEASE! www.youtube.com/apollyphelion Creator of the World's Worst Comic Book
|
Slimz
.-~*´`*·~-experience-~*´`*·~-.




Registered: 10/03/07
Posts: 3,588
Loc: Maryland
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: Apollyphelion]
#7602619 - 11/06/07 01:11 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Problem
...analogues like ALD52 use LSD as a precursor.
...there are active "modified" LSD molecules true, but they also use LSD as a precursor and some are actually STRONGER than LSD, but the loss of product during the processing is such that it makes no sense to convert the LSD molecule.
... Hoffman's original method of LSD production is not the best one by far. In his experiments you would loose approx. 50% of the yield to iso-LSD (wich is not active) so on a sheet of blotter that can hold 200ug of active LSD, you could only actually lay 100 because the other 100 would be iso-LSD.
you have done your research, but your conclusions are based on some conjecture and not the actual process of making the drug. When the process is explored further, you will find that LSD is LSD if its LSD at all...
-------------------- Lazy Drywall Tek (no powdery mess) This series will blow your mind and confirm what you already know to be true. The Pharmacratic Inquisition Best Thread Ever ! ! !
me if you have questions about lasers Although i may advise others in a general way regarding all types of mushroom grows, and may even post question from other forums about growing "active" mushrooms, i only grow non-"active" mushrooms and edibles. FeelFamily resident tech guru
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: Slimz]
#7602706 - 11/06/07 01:31 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
you have done your research, but your conclusions are based on some conjecture and not the actual process of making the drug. When the process is explored further, you will find that LSD is LSD if its LSD at all...
It really depends how you categorize it. And remember that taxonomy is a human and often arbitrary method of identification. The bottom line is, not every hit of blotter or whatever you're consuming is the same thing molecularly necessarily.
Edited by jonathan_206 (11/06/07 01:32 PM)
|
Robo
R Series 66Y
Registered: 05/08/07
Posts: 14,861
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
#7602715 - 11/06/07 01:33 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It is if it's LSD-25. LSD-25 is LSD-25, bottom line.
|
KilroyMilosevik
Swiss Ego



Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 989
Loc: Northwest of Nowhere
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
#7602716 - 11/06/07 01:33 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Whoever takes synthetic drugs is just a guinea pig for the underground drug market and the pharmacutical industry, Neither of which is readily accountable to the general public. Neither of which really care about your health with understanding. If they did they would not make these drugs.
And the more drugs are pumped out, the more power they are given. And as the line between natural and synthetic drugs becomes more and more indistinguishable, the more natural drugs will as a natural consequence, be controlled and persecuted by fear driven ignorant masses, as they put their minds and lives in the hands of those who which to take advantage of them, who do not know the truth. And I believe this natural consequence has already happened.
Excellent conclusion! Much truth! 
I'd still purchase something that is being marketed as LSD though. It's so rare in my area, and I'm pretty keen on moderation and responsibility... but honestly I would probably never know whether it was "real" LSD or not in this day and age... pretty sad.
I think the human race still has a long way to go before we get to the point of controlling every naturally occurring and synthetic mind altering substance. I think I'll be able to consume other psychedelics throughout my life without seeing much change... but as for future generations; I just don't know.
-------------------- -The door. -The door is closed. -Why is the door closed? *Gasps* -Why DOES the door close!?
|
zoomzenko
Stranger

Registered: 09/05/08
Posts: 13
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: Slimz]
#9549356 - 01/05/09 04:03 AM (15 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
I've always known that despite what people say, LSD is not LSD. There is sooo much variation. I've bought sheets and sheets of great acid (Mmmmm, Deities and Demons drinking from the milky pool) and I have had the shittiest shit imaginable (Alien Heads, anyone?). The good stuff, RELIABLY made me feel wonderful, always, regardless of set and setting, whereas the Alien Heads, no matter where they were taken, often in the same locations, did NOT make me feel the LSD joy and wonder, but rather felt like glitchy impulses were going off throughout my head. MY gut churned in excruciating agony, my heart pounded like I was going to die on a few occasions. Set and setting could be exactly the same.
And YES, this was LSD, I know DOM, DOI, etc. anything that could be laid on a blotter. I have experience with all of it. Its NOT the same. This was SHIT lsd. The back of the blotter wasn't a nice crystal clear white like it should be (mmmmmm, clean acid), no, it was a nasty, murky yellow. Impurities can HUGELY affect the trip and anyone who says otherwise, well, I will have to believe that they don't know their acid. Why do you think all the old hippies bitch that acid aint what it used to be?
And don't say dosage is different, because these people can take 10 hits and still complain that is just doesn't feel "right" like it used to. A lot of it feels DIFFERENT. We're not all idiots.
|
thedudenj
Man of the Woods

Registered: 08/18/04
Posts: 14,684
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: zoomzenko]
#9549937 - 01/05/09 08:29 AM (15 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
people say i spread misinformation about alot of things. i eat datura,amanita,ayhauacsa, ect. if you have taken things with you know damn right. its only misinformation for people that dont really know or who dont use things right.
yeah going about LSD alot of the LSD is some DOx i hate that it goes around as L but what ever DOx isnt that bad
--------------------
  "You all are just puppets... You have no heart...and cannot feel any pain..."" you may think thats pain you feel but you must have a heart to feel true pain and that pain wont be yours
|
collinZzZz
have moicy!



Registered: 12/30/08
Posts: 1,916
Loc: midwaist
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: thedudenj]
#9550246 - 01/05/09 10:06 AM (15 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
DOx is from space.
--------------------
"I have never freed myself from the suspicion that there is something very odd about this mission."
|
traviedigital
Stranger

Registered: 05/03/08
Posts: 187
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: collinZzZz]
#9550453 - 01/05/09 11:00 AM (15 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
great post AL!!!!
Looks like many of the reply posters, did not understand, or even read your post.
Anyone who believes every blotter they consume of "LSD", is pure LSD, is ignorant.
If anyone can prove to me they only have taken LSD, i would be interested in hearing. You have a solution soaked piece of blotter paper, unless you are a chemist, you have no idea of knowing what is on that blotter. Maybe your trip will give you some direction to what it was exactly, but most likely not.
Chinca_Cat would be the highest authority on this subject, ask him if you don't believe AL
|
Plasmid
Absent


Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 1,719
Last seen: 15 years, 25 days
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
#9559366 - 01/06/09 06:21 PM (15 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
What you're saying is silly.
You're trying to say that the tautology that "LSD is LSD is wrong." It's not wrong.
What you're really saying is that "not every blotter has pure d-LSD on it."
That's very different than saying that LSD is not LSD (which doesn't even make sense).
A lot of your post is just rhetorical and doesn't say anything. What do you mean a plant doesn't forget? What's that supposed to mean? Anything?
Now, I don't know anyone who would claim that even the same dose of absolutely pure LSD always produces the same effects. That seem silly to me. Psychedelic drugs are notorious for being unpredictable, so I'd think it's ridiculous for someone to say that even the same dose of pure d-LSD in the same person would ever have exactly the same effects.
What happens when you substitute the hydrogens on any of the various positions of the lysergic backbone with some other element or compound?
If you think that your answer that "it's different" is supposed to be some great revelation, then I've got news for you: it's not. Of course, if you change an atom in a molecule, then you've changed the molecule. That's basic chemistry.
that lsd is always just lsd
LSD is always LSD, but this isn't a guarantee that if you buy something that someone claims is LSD that it really is LSD. The argument you're making for "LSD is not always LSD" doesn't support this statement. You're confused. Yes, it's possible for other active drugs (analogues of LSD or different "designer drugs" altogether) to produce psychedelic experiences like LSD. If someone claimed that an LSD analogue was LSD then they'd be wrong. I just don't see how you can try saying "LSD isn't always LSD." By definition, it is. I understand what you're getting at, but that doesn't change the identity of LSD.
And please, LSD is not that unstable. It is not, by any means, "extremely unstable."
As for the ALD-52 thing, my understanding is that there isn't any evidence that this has ever been sold, so who cares.
I have done lsd, and both experiences were greatly different. One was lavender acid, the other I don't know what kind. Noone can tell me it was just set and setting. They were both remarkably different. Lavender acid causes you to burst out in a huge grin that you cannot get rid of. And other acid I have tried did not feel the same way. My setting changed consistently throughout my experiences with lsd, and attesting difference to dose cannot affect such markedly wide variations in different types of lsd. And there are certainly others that agree with me!
Who cares if people agree with you? That doesn't mean jack shit.
I'm sorry, but you think that you're educating people here and are spreading mythology about "lavender" acid and shit like that. This is absolute bullshit. What is "lavender" acid exactly? Have you ignored the fact that even pure LSD is known to cause different effects in the same person at the same dose. You can't say that you know it wasn't set and setting, especially when you have no evidence that you've had "lavender" acid or that such a thing as lavender acid even exists. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're totally full of misinformation.
You don't need dose variation to explain the differences in effects. Psychedelic drugs are known to be unpredictable in their effects.
So who's spreading disinformation?
You might not think you are, but I assure you that you are completely ignorant. PLEASE STFU.
-------------------- Absent.
|
Plasmid
Absent


Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 1,719
Last seen: 15 years, 25 days
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: traviedigital]
#9559392 - 01/06/09 06:26 PM (15 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
traviedigital said: If anyone can prove to me they only have taken LSD, i would be interested in hearing. You have a solution soaked piece of blotter paper, unless you are a chemist, you have no idea of knowing what is on that blotter.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone can appreciate the original post. It is complete shit.
Yes, it's silly for someone to believe that every blotter of "acid" they've bought is pure LSD, but that is TOTALLY different than saying that "LSD is LSD."
Of course LSD is LSD. Is "acid" always LSD? No. Those are two different statements.
I'm just stunned though that the OP can babble about bullshit like "lavender" and claim that he knows that "lavender" is different than [insert bullshit name here] acid.
Psychedelic drugs are unpredictable in their effects. Even if the same person takes the same dose of LSD, they can have completely different experiences and reactions on two separate occasions. It is stupidly ignorant to claim that you do or do not know that a different reaction was not due to set and setting.
What the fuck is "lavender acid" supposed to be?
I'm sorry, but the original post is full of some genuinely good information and some absolute bullshit.
-------------------- Absent.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Who's spreading disinformation about synthetic drugs? [Re: Plasmid]
#9560394 - 01/06/09 08:47 PM (15 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Plasmid is correct.
The op is just semantics. LSD is LSD. The OP presumes when people say LSD they mean the range of things that can be called lysergic acid diethylamide or maybe also isomers- this is not true in my experience.
LSD either means the preperation "hey man, wanna buy some LSD?" which can be blotter product or liquid product or whatever, or LSD can mean the actual active substance "LSD is a chemical that makes you trip. LSD is in blotter sold as acid." In your post you are using the later usage.
If you claim someone means the presumption I've outlined earlier, then fine, but I don't know anyone that thinks like that. When they refer to the drug, not the preperation, they are referring to one molecule.
But the point that you're trying to make: that different experiences can be differentiated from oneanother due to different versions of an LSD preparation, seems wrong or at least with no evidence.
People talk about "heady blotters" and stupid shit, but nobody has ever shown any evidence that purity or care in syntheiss affects anything other than the magnitude of dosage and effects caused thereby- let alone that one can distinguish between these effects. As a result, and the fact that the active dose of LSD is so small, I refuse to believe it.
|
|