Is white on white usually weaker than other blotter?

Uhmmm, how so?
My position is that the differences between different grades of LSD crystal have little or no bearing on the subjective effects if the microgram weight of LSD is the same. NOT the percentage of LSD in a crystal sample, but the end weight of LSD in a hit.
If the weight of actual LSD-25 is the same in the doses, I doubt very much that a person could discern one type of crystal from another based on subjective effects.

 

Why would sandoz only send out the cleanest if it's all the same anyways?

 

dude, i DO understand. just because i'm quoting you doesn't mean i 100% disagree with you.

my question was, do you think that most dealers titrate their doses to contain 100 ug of actual LSD? i don't. my guess is that you agree. when someone has 85% pure LSD, he probably lays "100 ug" to yield 85 real micrograms

ya dig?

 

Sorry, misunderstood your post.
Yes, that is what is most likely the case. I'm betting most just go for the 10,000 doses per gram titration, which would yield hits having an LSD content relative to the overall percentage of LSD in the crystal used.
So yeah, once again Pork we are saying the same thing
I dig ya brotha:afro:

 

Because they were a big pharmaceutical company.
Why would they send out product of crappy purity?
I don't think you completely understand what I'm saying.
LSD is LSD, plain and simple. The percentage of crystal that is actually LSD-25 can and does vary.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Sandoz most likely standardized the final product they shipped out so that they were all of the same percentage of LSD-25, probably 90+% at least.

 

You think Sandoz would have sent out products that were 90% pure? Yea right. They had a license to make the stuff, it would have been at least 98% pure. One of the reasons the Grateful Dead family and Owsley had an easy time with things when it all began was because the precursors were easy to get. I believe people were starting with d-lysergic acid monohydrate back in the day which is much farther along that one would get to start these days. One of the reasons so many shitty batches of L gets made is because people have to be much more creative these days with sourcing chemicals and often have to make some of their own or settle for things that are far less than ideal.


As you say, LSD is LSD, plain and simple. Regardless, there are different grades of crystal that vary in % purity and these crystals have unique looks, impurities and names. Beforehand you were saying that was all bullshit and just some marketing ploy but now you've at least acknowledged that isn't the case. You yourself have seen needlepoint and just had a picture shown to you of white fluff and of beige crystal. Now whether or not anyone can tell a difference in these crystals is subjective and you simply can not prove either way. People have to just take your word for it or base it on their own experiences. Personally my experience carries much more weight than your word and it has shown me that I can indeed tell the difference and its not just 100% reliant on micrograms of LSD-25 present.

You know all those Hofmann blotters? I believe some of that was from european crystal that really wasn't up to par. I had plenty of the 1906 - 2008 ones. People raved over them and even people I know bought em' up and ate it right up. Compared to what I was used to eating, it sure didn't seem get me where I wanted to be. It had a bit more of a stimulant effect, seemed less visual even in high doses and had more of a body load. Its the same with every drug. There is only 1 mdma molecule chemically speaking but somehow people have varying grades of molly even though its all real mdma. Same goes for all the other drugs out there and that comes directly from the fact that 99% of them are produced in clandestine labs using recipes and labs of varying quality, done by chemist of varying talent.


Btw - read this: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_writings1.shtml

You'll notice: "Owsley's fellow alchemist, Tim Scully, admitted to me that the 1965 batch was impure, but claims that Owsley and he perfected a purification process in 1966. Many who used both Sandoz and Owsley - the latter came in tablets of purple (Purple Haze) and white (White Lightning) of 270 micrograms - say that Owsley acid was less mystical and had more stimulant side reactions than the Sandoz product."

Interesting huh? More stimulant side reactions and less mystical? That is EXACTLY what I said about the Hofmann blotters compared to my usual amazing White Fluff and Silver. After this I found others who thought the Hofmann's were less than desirable quality Euro Silver. People were able to tell the difference of Crystal back in the 60s man and there are reports that talk about it. You can even go on to read Timothy Leary wrote, "There was now (1968) little good acid around, and what there was - the so-called "street acid" - came mainly from California. There was something wrong with the synthesis; it was not pure. And you were never sure what it was exactly that you were taking, so I only dropped it on those rare occasions when someone gave me "Sandoz" or "crystal" acid...

My evaluation had nothing to do with the notion that a wholly synthetic drug produced a wholly synthetic experience - the intellectual response - but was based on direct, first-hand experience (about 30 trips with street acid in all). And in each session I felt that there was something it lacked - it was too "electric," too "speedy" and too "mind-shattering." The earlier clarity of "insight" which I had obtained via the Sandoz acid was replaced by confusion, brokenness, words and worlds thrown into absolute dismemberment, or even absolute chaos, though, I must add, often coupled with a feeling that I can only describe as "sublime inflation," a super abundance of emotive energy, but it could not signify more a passionate flame and less the life-giving sun."

I think Timothy Leary is a pretty well respected opinion on Lsd, right?

Then they go on to explain: "How do these impurities change the optimum course of action of LSD and the experience it creates? One of the theories is that, because d-LSD-25 is like a key (its outer electron shell has a specific shape), it fits into a number of tiny locks called "receptor sites." These are located somewhere in the brain - nobody is sure where, but one theory suggests that they might be in the brain stem. It is known, however, that these receptor sites interact only with extremely specific molecular configurations.

The various ergot compounds, cycloalkamides of LSD and lumi-LSD plug into the same receptor sites as LSD does. But these compounds evidently don't turn the lock in the smooth, clean manner of LSD. Many of these compounds have effects similar to symptoms of ergot poisoning - the St. Anthony's Fire of the Middle Ages. These symptoms include inflamed joints, headaches, nausea, and hot and cold flashes.

Isomers of LSD are another possible contaminant and indeed are reported present by the drug analysis groups. There are four possible isomers of LSD, but only the d-lysergic acid diethyl amide form is active. The other rotation forms - l-lysergic acid diethyl amide, d and l iso-lysergic acid diethyl amide (contrary to recent reports!) - are inactive. they have no pharmacological role, except possibly as a catalyst for some latent effect of LSD, or to block the action of LSD at the receptor site.

If a contaminated batch of diethyl amine is used in the manufacturing process, or if the chemist purposely decides to make them, LSD homologues might be present in the final crystal. Molecules similar to LSD in structure but with some addition, subtraction or rearrangement of action, homologues plug into the same keyhole that LSD does.

Some of these homologues have profound effects that vary in course of action and potency. For example, the strongest of he homologues, ALD-52, has 91 percent the potency of LSD and is said to have a slightly different effect upon the mind (there is some dispute about this).

However, as Albert Hofmann puts it in "Drugs Affecting the Central Nervous System": LSD has the highest and most specific effect and may therefore be considered as the genuine prototype of psychotomimetic compounds."

Thus, all impurities found in LSD are like imperfect keys. Such substances as ergot alkaloids, cycloalkamides and other lysergic acid derivatives, and LSD homologues and lumi-LSD are drugs that might open the door part way. But only pure LSD opens the doors of perception all the way."

Basically leaving the door open for the possibility that impurities can effect the trip. Now imagine how a drug that only has threshold level effects might alter a trip on LSD? I think its quite easy to say it is possible that impurities in certain batches of LSD can effect the end trip when you consider all of this information plus the subjective opinion of many who agree.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_info8.shtml Other opinions and much much more can be found if you look.

 

I'm not going to pretend to grasp all the chemistry you mentioned, but you do make a persuasive argument for the purity issue.
For some time now I've been on the "purity and contaminants dont substantially change it" side of the fence. But I've always been fascinated by the topic. So, one comment and one question...

My belief is that by the middle times of Leary yore, until the end, at times he would say whatever bolstered his argument at hand. But that's a sidebar.

So in relation that, and all of your post... what is your take on this erowid snippit?

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_article2.shtml

I've always taken that to mean that all variables you mention taken into account, the "street acid" experience isn't not quantifiably different from pure or "sandoz".

 

I think that excerpt is comparing quality LSD to quality LSD. Obviously anyone who is lucky enough to be in the circle of people that got to crack open a 55 year old vial of Sandoz acid are in the know enough to get good LSD on the street. I'm also guessing they were comparing the effects of the LSD-25 from Sandoz to the quality trips they've had on good LSD from other sources, not comparing it to the few times they've possibly ended up with shitty acid.

I think if you compared White Fluff of today to fresh Sandoz LSD from back in they day, they would definitely be harder to distinguish. This is because White Fluff is 95%+ pure. I think you would only be able to tell a difference between these at doses which were very high and then the experiences would be so intense, you may have trouble distinguishing between the different types of crystal simply because each trip can have its own unique feel and trajectory. I think it also depends on the specific synthesis because this will effect what impurities are present which may or may not be active compounds.

I think the times when you'll notice these purity issues the most is comparing high quality LSD to low or moderate quality LSD. When you're comparing two products that are 93% pure and 97% pure, you won't be able to tell a difference unless you're eating large doses. BUT I believe if you're comparing LSD that is 70% pure to something that is 95% pure, the differences will be much more apparent. In my experience(which seems to be echoed in other reports I've read/heard) less pure LSD lacks some of the "magic" of the trip and has more of an amphetamine feel to it.

If you read on down to where they post the opinions of 4 folks who ate the acid, they do state that the Sandoz seemed the same as GOOD acid they've taken in the past. One user does mention having LSD of obvious difference in quality and and some that was "clearly different" Another remarks, " I've had material that seemed ultra-clean (whatever that means) and I've had trips where it seemed like I was getting more body tension and anxiety than usual, though nothing particularly bad." The next goes on to mention they've been careful only to get LSD from close friends who guarantee good quality. I think this further supports my opinions on this matter.

Hope that explains why I think its perfectly reasonable those folks thing the Sandoz LSD is comparable to some of the LSD they've done off the streets while still maintaining my ideas about purity and its effect on the experience...


By the way, I completely agree about Leary when he is pushing his social/political/idealistic agendas. But when it comes to quantifying the LSD experience in relation to chemistry, supply, quality and history, I will definitely lend him my ear.


I also ran across another thing on Erowid I had read in the past: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_info5.shtml
This talks about other LSD analogs that are active at similar or even lower doses than LSD.
Hope that helps.

 

I read it a bit differently myself. All 4 people appear to take the same stance in essence, I feel they downplay quality rather than emphasize it.

1.As I started coming up on the Sandoz material, it felt like some of the better acid I'd tried. The peak several hours felt nearly identical to what I'd expect from taking eight or so of those brown dots or 1.5-2 hits of decent late 1990s blotter. It was good, but it was just like other acid. - Z

2.I took approximately 100 µg and found it to be exactly what I'd expect from a solid single hit of good quality blotter. In terms of body load, the effects felt comparable to almost all batches of acid I've taken before. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. It was a great experience, and for me helped answer the question of whether the acid I've had before was good material, and the answer is yes. - R

3.Ultimately, consuming Sandoz material solidified my opinion that every time in the past when I took "street acid" the stuff that I was getting truly was LSD. The Sandoz LSD was great-it just wasn't any better. So don't let hippies who wax rhapsodic about the good old days and claim that "LSD is no longer LSD" fool you. "Bad acid" more likely indicates a "bad mindset", a "bad environment", or an incorrect dose, than any effect from some miniscule amount of impurity that might be present.

4.My experiences with LSD over the years have been varied. It can be tricky to differentiate which characteristics of an experience can be attributed to a drug versus set and setting.
With that disclaimer in mind, I must say that I could not tell the difference between the Sandoz LSD and any other form of LSD I've tried. I was certainly paying attention to this issue, as I've heard the claims that acid today isn't as good as it used to be, in the '50s and '60s, but I would have to say, based on my experiences, that acid is acid. - F

I really know very little about chemistry and this late in life I won't be taking up the study so understanding all the processes in synth is beyond me.
I've either been very lucky and never had "bad" acid, or the variance so often mentioned is rarer than anecdote would imply.

 

Your making a lot of assumptions here.
Could it also be possible that there just wasn't much in the way of subjective differences between what people had prior and the Sandoz?

One thing is that in the absence of any labs to test and verify dosage and purity of a given sample, it's all conjecture.
I still feel that given the same dose of actual LSD-25 molecules you would not be able to discern the differences between crystal of differing purity.

From my own experience I've never noticed a large difference in subjective effects that wasn't dose related, and I have sampled many different forms; crystal, blotter, dots, powder, liquid and some weird candy like stuff printed on paper, of LSD from many different sources spanning 3+ decades in doses ranging from ~25ug-900ugs tested and verified as well as a plethora of unknown dosages.

In your experience do you consider how your "set" is defined when someone tells you it's Needlepoint as opposed to when it's just non-descript blotter?
I'm sure you go into the experience with different expectations when told the LSD is this or that crystal.

Your expectations play a big role in how subjective effects manifest.

Anywho, welcome to HF, I'm sure you will prove to be another good contributor to the forums. :2thumbsup:

 

Again, they say in the freaking article that the sandoz stuff was salmon-brown color. Like amber-lavendar crystals of today.
That means that the crystal is basically just like today's, I'm sure after 50 years even well stored acid becomes a bit more impure...

 

So, let's focus on the color of the crystal and disregard the rest of the article and comments like this;

"However, the consensus among those to whom we spoke who had substantial experience with street acid was that the 55-year-old, apparently fully potent, Sandoz LSD was experientially indistinguishable from other acid they'd tried."

or this comment;

"I've taken LSD probably around 30-40 times. Most of my experiences have been with blotter, but I've done liquid and microdots as well.

My experiences with LSD over the years have been varied. It can be tricky to differentiate which characteristics of an experience can be attributed to a drug versus set and setting.

With that disclaimer in mind, I must say that I could not tell the difference between the Sandoz LSD and any other form of LSD I've tried. I was certainly paying attention to this issue, as I've heard the claims that acid today isn't as good as it used to be, in the '50s and '60s, but I would have to say, based on my experiences, that acid is acid. - F"


Again, if you guys were given LSD and not told the "color" of the source crystal I'm pretty confident you would not be able to tell the difference.
You guys notice a "difference" because someone is telling you about how great and pure it is or it's this or that crystal.

I think we need to set-up a double blind experiment using different grades of LSD crystal and settle this shit.
So who has a few grams of different grades of LSD laying around they want to contribute to scientific research?

 

Because these people have had so many trips of differing qualities without actually knowing the grade of the crystal, I think that means they are more likely to attribute the differing effects to set and setting as opposed to crystal quality. Their views were probably also skewed since they were told this would be the cleanest and purest sandoz lsd, when it was clearly dirty, they probably thought, "wow, if that was the cleanest and I had experiences similar to stuff i felt was 'dirty', it must be set and setting".

 

Again your making an ASSUMPTION about the "cleanliness" or purity of the Sandoz sample, something which you have absolutely no way of knowing and are just basing it on stuff you have heard from friends, forums and drug dealers about color=purity.
That ain't how science works.

From the medical and clinical papers I have read on the subject, the whole color=purity really has never come up. It only comes up in venues such as these forums

I think you are completely missing the point that by having such a wide range of trips of differing quality, the likelihood that they had consumed different grades of crystal is almost a certainty. I know I've had stuff from different grades of crystal, and as I said before, the only differences were due to dosage.

You do understand the idea that crystal that is 70% LSD-25 laid on blotter will most likely yield hits ~70ugs per hit, where as crystal that is 95% LSD-25 will yield hits that are ~95ugs in strength, assuming they are laid at the 10,000 dose per gram titration.
So of course there is going to be a difference in subjective effects, but it is due to differences in potency of the hits, not the color of the crystal.
differences in purity=differences in strength.
Or do you just think all doses are the same strength?
Please apply a little logic to it.

 

So we aren't in agreement even that the purest stuff is white and that impure stuff is off white?
And yes I obviously know that about purity, read my first post in this thread. I just also think there's more to it than potency.

 

impurities will effect crystal formation and color, noxious. trust me...i'm a biochemist

a more pure substance would form a more perfect crystal, which would refract light going through it to a minimal degree...therefore you see white or clear

with impurities, the crystals shape is more irregular, and certain wavelengthts of light are reflected back, giving the appearance of color to the human eye.

 

Do we know for fact that pure LSD does not have a colour, though?

They normally say that, but in most solutions, etc, there would be so little you wouldn't know, and you sure as hell won't see it on blotter, no matter what colour it is.

 

We aren't talking about color you can't see bro. The colors are supposed to be obvious, if it`s basically white its white.

 

Found this thread. Kinda blows the whole color=purity debate out of the water.

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/5448684

Here is an excerpt;
I will attempt to answer this and dispell some of the totally ridiculous myths I have heard about LSD crystal purity.

First of all, I would like to point out that I am an x-ray crystallographer. My who job consists of crystallizing molecules. When I worked in organic synthesis, we used crystallization as a purification technique. When it comes to biomacromolecules, crystallization is much more difficult and you are far more likely to come across polymorphs.

The reason that different crystal forms of the same substance can exist, even if they are of the exact same purity, has to partly do with the kinetics of nucleation and crystal growth. Essentially, when a crystal is growing it is trying to arrange itself into a three-dimensional lattice with a minimum of energy. Biomacromolecules are more likely to exibit different crystal forms because they can arrange themselves into lattices of similar energy in a number of different ways. With small molecules like LSD tartrate, there are less ways that the crystal can arrange itself into a stable fashion, so it is less likely that you will run into polymorphs.

So, why do polymorphs exist? Some crystal forms will have approximately the same energy, but sometimes crystallization occurs fast or slow. If crysallization occurs quickly, then the crystal form which has the lowest potential energy barrier to overcome during its growth will be prefferred. However, if crystallization occurs slowly and is reversible, then the thermodynamically most stable crystal form will be preferred. There could then be a mix of kinetic vs. thermodynamic crystal forms in between the two extremes.

Those are not the only two factors in crystallization, even for the exact same substance. Solvation is known to play a role in crystallization, so often solvent molecules will be hidden in the intermolecular spaces of a crystal and will show disorder (and these buggers are damn hard to find sometimes with diffraction data). Solvation can also affect the kinetics of crystallization. That is, with one solvent, crystal form A might be kinetically preferred with one solvent but another solvent might prefer crystal form B.

It is entirely possible to have two very different looking crystals of the same substance with essentially the same purity, just as it is entirely possible to have two similar looking crystals of the same substance with very different purity.
You can't tell just by looking!

However, even LSD is known to show crystal polymorphism. This means that, absolutely pure LSD tartrate exists in more than one crystal form.

and this;

When it comes to the types of LSD crystal I've heard about though, I've never seen anybody describe how any type of crystal had its purity determined in the first place (it just seems to be an assumption). The only assays of purity I've ever seen have been bioassays, which are not (at all!) anywhere near reliable. You're talking about someone trying to assay the purity of a psychedelic drug, when they know beforehand what the crystal looks like.

I mean, honestly, just think about this: you do two syntheses. One gives beautiful crystals. One gives black precipitate. They could both be 95% pure. Are you really going to tell me that you would not be biased to believe that something was wrong with the black ppt? And you honestly think that upon ingesting them, your subjective experience would be in no way affected by that bias? Even though you're under the influence of the most potent hallucinogenic drug known to man?

Or, even if you did assay it's purity, and found that the black stuff was 60% pure and the nice crystal 98%, do you believe that wouldn't influence the effects in some way?

To be reliably convinced that the statements about needlepoint, fluff, etc. are anywhere near accurate and reliable, you would want to know that: (1) the synthetic method used was exactly the same each time. I don't just mean almost exactly. I mean exactly. Down to the same solvent and everything. (2) The different crystals or precipitates resulting from the synthesis and purification had already been well characterized by RELIABLE methods.

So, even if one synthesis, under certain conditions, produces a specific type of crystal (or ppt.) when it's X% pure, doesn't mean that a similar looking crystal (or ppt.) from a different (or even very similar) synthesis is anywhere near X% pure.

I'm thinking this is the reality of the situation.

 

Then you should also know about the factors presented in the thread I mentioned above and that simply looking at something or bio-assay are just about the worst and most unreliable means of determining a substances properties, correct?

I've had bud before that was nasty, dirtweed looking, seedy with no real odor to it that knocked me on my ass, and I've had some of the most amazing looking, smelling and tasting bud that was more or less worthless in terms of effect.
Just looking don't tell you very much about a substance except what wavelength of light it is reflecting.