Q. about LSD in the 60s or earlier

"i cant speak for the 60's but i can comment from 76 on.."


"the thread asked a specific question of those from a generation of which neither of you were a part of,so quit dragging it off topic for your own purpose.."


lol!

 

76 ,, that is correct.. 31 years ago..


8 years before you were born.. the O.P. asked about the 60's and wanted to know from someone who was actually alive then..

i was actually alive,,i actually remember 1969.. i didnt read a book or watch a interview.

my statements are based on personal experience which is what the O.P. asked for..
while my statement may be a decade later than what the O.P. wanted,i see he was pleased with my response..



please refrain from your immature personal attacks as they are against forum guidelines.

 

what and you instructing me on what thread i should post in isnt a immature personal attack? you started it by demeaning my post for no reason because i was born in the 80s.

sure you were alive in the 60s so what? you didnt take acid till the 70s and i believe this is post in the LSD section of this forum is it not?

again i have to quote you..
"the thread asked a specific question of those from a generation of which neither of you were a part of,so quit dragging it off topic for your own purpose.."

now its..
"while my statement may be a decade later"

not very specific to me ey? and rather hypocritical.

you label yourself .. "the old asshole" then bitch about forum guidelines when someone calls you out to be one.

 

i didnt label myself that.. skip did..

the response from the OP to my post..

i didnt see a comment on yours.

i rest my case..



i have nothing further to type here.. as off topic posts are against forum guidelines as well..

have a nice day...

 

Hippiehillbilly was the only one who gave me the information I was wanting so far even if it was 7 years later, [how much did it cost?]. Nobody else quite gave me the information I was seeking out, he may have been referring to '76 but that is still very much different than today, $10 a ten strip... I'm assuming by this then in the 60s it must have been practically free if not very cheap.

But I still want to know if people back in the day were just taking shit loads of it, vs the people today where the most of us savor it due to the amount it costs or just because the effects can be noticeable after 2 hits or so. (The only reason i want to know this is just to get more of a feel as to why it may have just landed them on the mars and not my generation, and thus the point being because they had access to more at cheaper prices).. if you get my point. I know it still can and will land many of us on mars, but not usually , at least in my neighborhood.

I didn't intend for an argument. If you'd really like to help ask a grandparent or somebody who doesn't mind sharing their own LSD history if they have any. I made this topic as I can not ask an adult something similar to that.

 

in order to get a better idea of how much LSD cost back then you would have to compare the price of acid to the price of a car, a house, a chocolate bar. because if you compare the price of a chocolate bar you will notice that they were also very cheap back in the day. what i mean is that a lot of the reason for the increase in price is inflation - a very natural process thanx to our fucked up economy. it seems like everything is going to get more and more expensive every year. thankfully our income seems to go up as well - too bad prices dont stay the same because it seems like our income can never catch up to the inflation. sure our income goes up but never enough and always too late.

because LSD went from $5 per hit to $10 per hit very recently i would expect to hear that people are making more money off LSD now then they did way back when even if you take inflation into account. but in order to get an accurate account for what is happening you would have to take inflation into account.

 

i thought it was all weak until recently. cleanest ive ever had

 

wow! the only sandoz pics I've seen are vials of 25 mg.

 

i think it is way too narrow to see it this way, like one hit is now this certain price or this strength or whatever. maybe that's how it is in the USA, cos the majority of members that post here seem to be american, so consider how things are everywhere in the world. We can get numerous different types of acid where I live and it's relatively cheap - £5 for a liquid drop upto 250 mics (thats good stuff) or £5 for a tab. same goes with sugar cubes. but one person had some once that was £10 a tab which was quite extortionate. the price will vary alongside the strength in different places you go. And I think it's true that back in the '60s the acid was a lot stronger, my mum's a bit of a space fairy from the extent of/strength of all her acid trips back at that time.

 

it doesnt matter where you are in the world there is only one 'type' of LSD and that is LSD-25. LSD comes in different doses and many different forms but it is all the same stuff. LSD does not come in flavors. maybe you already knew this but you worded it wrong - saying 'many types of acid' is misleading.

 

He was obviously referring to how it is being delivered when he said type, ie, 'blotter', 'liquid', 'cube'. And due to his reference of mcg I'm sure he's well aware that it is LSD either way.

 

he is actually a she

and it is not obvious what she means when she says 'types of acid'. sure she goes on to talk about the different doses and forms but that doesnt mean that she is aware that there is only one LSD.

because of the wording it is difficult to know for sure what she is saying. someone who is ignorant could read her post and think that there are different types or different kinds of LSD in other parts of the world when really there is only one LSD - but it comes in many forms.

 

She said different forms of acid not LSD. Different forms as in different forms of serving such substance. I think you lack common sense. Nobodys ever confused except you and how is what you are saying relevant to my topic anyway? You compare drug inflation to americans economy, you are pretty swift.

 

what is your problem?

she said different 'types' NOT different 'forms'... i was the one who suggested that 'forms' would have been a better word to use.

whats the big deal anyways? all you seem to want to do is argue. now you have made your point clear enough - you dont have to drag this out.(there is no need)

oh, and by the way - acid is another word for LSD.(same thing)... maybe you are confused?

 

in the mid 70s it was $1.50 a hit, about twice as strong as today if it was good though a fair amount of it wasn't so good. early 80s it was $3 a hit. prices were more consistant, they didn't vary like they do now. Often you didn't have to ask "How much?" because everybody knew the price.
acid went into a slump then made a comeback in the 90s, hits became weaker so people started taking more hits per dose.

 

Yeah, you are right, all I want to do is argue when you are the one picking at technicalities in one persons post, hmm? That's odd. *cough* hypocrite. What is the big deal anyway with saying 'types of acid'? If 'form' is just a 'better use' and not actually 'technically' incorrect then why even bother bitching in the first place? Acid is just a nick name, different things have been sold under the same name whether the intent was to purchase LSD or just a tryptamine in general. Obviously there cant be 'types' of a chemical unless you mean the iso's and what not. And obviously she went on to explain the types of 'acid' (and what she meant by the use of the word 'types') later on in the post when she spoke of sugar cubes and etc, so no need to go and warn her there isn't 'types of LSD'. Anybody to assume otherwise would have to be dense (which is why I wasn't surprised you said something.)

Nice, were you alive through this or did you get the info. from someone else?

 

I find that those who label others with names such as "dense" and "hypocrite" could benefit from taking a good long look at them self. 3xi is not innocent either, infering that a single member here is "ignorant" is not too conciencious. Try to keep the term ignorant as a broad spectrum instead of using it to single out a poster. I strongly believe that everything happens fro a reason, in which case you two were led to each other for argument for a reason. no person is perfect, so why must we continue as a people to badger each other in order to take revenge for something as trivial as an internet post. If this is your way to vent, then may I suggest meditation as an alternative? Try to use an introspective train of thought.

 

i didnt say that someone was ignorant. i said

basically i am saying that anyone who thinks that there are different types or kinds of LSD is ignorant. as i have already said she probably used the wrong word to make her point so i am not saying that she is ignorant (unless she actually believes that there is more than one type of LSD)

i will say that a couple of the people in this thread might want to work on their reading retention and/or comprehension as i am not sure how you could have misunderstood the point i made so clear.

 

I concur 3xi, I did not correctly analyze your previous statement about ignorance. Although, you DID just fully make my point completely valid. By concluding that I might want to sharpen my reading retention or comprehension skills you bypassed two key points. First of all, you generalized my problem as a cognitive deficiency. You based that inference off of a single post. Instead of recognizing the mediation aspect of my post, you immediately went into a defensive mode, which in your case includes evasively talking down at others as if they, in this case, have a mental handicap. The second flaw in your suggestion would be that the suggestion you made about "work[ing] on their reading retention and/or comprehension" is a poor ruse of a put down. What you have done is disguised your retaliatory intention with a lucid remark supposedly aimed at helping another person understand their reading deficiency. The reason this is flawed is because the very act of reading your post and responding is pretty much the exercise in which one would ascertain higher reading retention and/or comprehension. Therefore, by suggesting such an exercise you have not only revealed your true intension of belittling me as a poster, you have also revealed YOUR ignorance of the fact that practice of reading retention/comprehension is achieved through reading and responding.

 

Another possible response I could have made was, point taken 3xi. This leads me to address a problem with text based communication. Without emphasis on words, a conversation can be understood in several ways. By rereading your previous post, I have discovered a second meaning. When stating "a couple of the people in this thread might want to work on their reading retention and/or comprehension" it is possible that you were alluding to our comprehension of this thread specifically and were not implying that our reading comprehension in any other thread or aspect of life needed to be honed. If this was your intention, I whole heartedly apologize, but I do however retain my statement that some of your wording is evasive.