Will LSD face extinction in the future?

interesting, sunshinechild. by ganeshas, do you mean the ones with ganesha on the back, and alex grey are on the front..."blue ganeshas?"

subjectively, they felt a good bit weaker than 120 ug each to me. 3 hits was pretty strong, but i don't think 360 ug strong. didn't seems as strong as 2 red stars which is supposedly 300 ug (150 each).

could have degraded by the time it got to me i suppose.

why wouldn't you adjust for inflation?

1 USD in 1970 would be worth ~$5.44 today.

so a 2 dollar hit of acid, should cost about 10 bucks today. seems right on to me.


the war on drugs hasn't done anything to decrease the availability or price or other drugs like cocaine, heroin, or weed...so i dunno why it would have worked so well on LSD.

so i guess it probably is lack of demand (on some level) that has caused LSD to be so rare. but it seems like there are a lot of people that would like to find LSD but can't. i guess i have a skewed view of the population since i visit HFs


RCs are more popular, because they are just more common. legal ones are super easy to find. but LSD is easily more "favored" by most people. i'd rather have it than any other psychedelic.

but i believe i'm rambling now. dunno if i have a point

 

cant imaging why lsd would be extinct..

 

Yep those Ganeshas. It's possible they've came in several batches because I saw in 2011 another analysis that was 82mcg, a guy on Shroomery said he had them tested at 67mcg (also in 2011), and on Ecstasydata they were 123 (in 2013).

The ones I had seemed more accurate to say they were in the ranges seen in 2011. They seemed about the same to me as the Cartoon Shivas that said 'psychedelic' on the bottom and was tested at 72mcg in 2011.

if I recall correctly the Dalai Lamas are over double the potency of anything the DEA analyzed 77-87.

 

You mean the same agency that insists pot be a schedule 1 substance, blocks testing of medical pot etc, if fact as I recall the DEA lies their asses off about everything, now you wanna cite them for their 'accurate' assessment of lsd potency? pffft whatever:smilielol5: Their study doesn't even cover the period during the bulk of my LSD trippage anyway (72-77)

 

Technically the reports were done by PharmChem, not the DEA. And why would the DEA report something less potent if they were trying to lie about it? With how they inflate street values that makes no sense. I understand nostalgia has you in denial that the potency of LSD declined two to three-fold on average in the 70s to what it is now, but this was a direct effect of entrepreneurship and safety due to the fear of so-called 'acid casualties'. potency means shit just take a few more it won't hurt you.

 

where do you find these blotter analyses?

 

and that is an important factor to account for and could account for the seeming disparity in potency vs testing.
From a purely experiential point of view, the average hit of LSD 30-40 years ago was stronger, and most of what I got was around 100ugs-200ugs, some confirmed via testing.

 

this is entirely correct.
Remember Owsley's first batch's (white lightening, purple haze, etc.) in the mid 60's were around 300ug, Nick Sands Orange Sunshine came in at about 250-270ugs and the result was a lot of trips to the ER for newbies tripping their friggin asses off.
About 1972 the dosing began to taper down, due to bad press, and "dealers" realized that they could sell twice as many hits at 100-150ugs for the same $$ and also have much happier customers as well.

The stuff I had that was tested back then was tested at Pharm-Chem, purple microdots tested at ~170ugs averaged over three doses, and liquid we got regularly was tested at 100ug and 150ug per drop.

good ole' days. :2thumbsup:

 

There is an good documentary about LSD from vice.
A must watch 19 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7qliVpGEk0"]Underground LSD Palace - YouTube

 

You are forbidden from posting anything by, from, promoting or related krystal cole !!!!!!


YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

Any future violations will be met with swift and sure punishment!!!!

:toetap05:

 

for recent blotters they're posted about various forums, some I have had sent myself in the Netherlands. if you look at the table on http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_article3.shtml , skip all the way down nearly to the bottom you can see we are pretty much following the same trend as we have been for a few decades. the avg blotter went from being in the 70s to the 50s from 1969 to now. that's really not that much of a difference. pharmchem is actually separate from the DEA, only some of the samples they published came from the DEA. in any case thats a really silly idea to think theyd skew stats to make things less potent. we're talking about the chemists not the guys trying to keep things illegal. this is the same breed people like alexander shulgin came from. anyone who could read a GC/MS and HPLC could tell you if it was fictionalized numbers or not. actually it would make more sense to say that LSD's low volatility made it harder to analyze pre-80s but still gc/ms has always been pretty damn accurate.

The thing is that LSD's SAR is too sensitive so a pretty decent level of purity has got to be there so it doesn't polymerize and become inactive. even if they skip recrystallization of end product there isn't gonna be too much iso-LSD that would affect dosage much. some newer synths involving peptide coupling reagents are being employed by the Dutch which actually the end result is a higher purity than Owsley Stanley's. probably by a good 10-15%. column chromatographic purification of LSD is pretty standard.

 

that wasn't my point exactly. You mentioned that the DEA tests took into account the difference in the amount of LSD-25 and iso-LSD, as well as other constituents, and if other labs simply test for overall lysergamides and not the specific types present, then you get skewed results relative to subjective potency.
Did that make sense?
I draw the analogy to the way weed is tested today vs 40 years ago and the resultant difference in apparent potency.
In the old days they would take a prescribed weight, an ounce say, and throw the entire thing, buds, leaves, stems, seeds, whatever into a blender then test the resultant powder for the total percentage of THC by weight.
Today they do more or less the same thing, BUT the material being tested is far different. Today an ounce would not contain the stems, leaf and seeds that would all work to reduce the total percentage of THC by weight, so different results are obtained, even if the two samples were in fact off the same plant.

That is what I was thinking.

 

A good friend of mine long ago from this site suggested that shrooms is a great alternative to LSD. At least those are not getting wiped out from the face of the Earth and you can grow them so easily without "using rocket science to make acid". I originally wanted to try acid back in 2006 until my brother used his scare tactic to prevent me from ever trying that stuff. Now 7 years later, I can freely do drugs without his intervention (despite that he introduced me to weed). These days, getting LSD is like playing Russian Roulette with the dealers falsely advertising a more toxic 25I-NBIMe as "acid" while selling real acid at the same time. I feel so happy that 25I-NBOMe is now illegal since that shit was really fucked up and killed a lot of people as a result. Oddly enough recently in 2009, human experimentation with LSD has once again came back after more than 40 years and now the "pure acid" is being made again in government and pharmaceutical labs. Hopefully somebody will open his/her mind and start selling that shit on the market since I'm tired of all the fake shit taking over the psychedelic markets.

 

there are still people selling real acid, lenini...they are just hard to find.

when you don't know the right people, it's a gamble whether it's real or not. so yeah, maybe mushrooms are a viable alternative. be careful though man. tripping is VERY intense. not like smoking weed. start with like 1.75 grams of dried mushrooms (a half eighth)

 

n

 

AS long as there still is a demand...........

 

what? Why is this an banned topic this sounds ridiculous its an free speech forum for gods sake,and after all you have an sub forum about fascism and nazism and we cant talk about krystal cole.
:sunny:

 

because she is a fucking complete idiot, a liar, a DEA informant, participated in torturing people, need I go on?

In short, she is not very well liked or respected among the psychedelic community and certainly not here at HF. :devil:

 

She's hot though.. kind of.

I would anyway.