Psychedelia.dk

Det skal dog siges at hvis i har været til festivaller kan i altid finde en eller anden gammel hippi som sider med alle mulige forskellige slags glas og kan mixe dig noget syre. Har jeg ihvertfald da selv set 3 gange

Jeg underskylder min hårde respons ... Var bare 100% sikker på det efter mine egne erfaringer of hvad jeg havde hørt . Det skal dog siges at hvis i har været til festivaller kan i altid finde en eller anden gammel hippi som sider med alle mulige forskellige slags glas og kan mixe dig noget syre. Har jeg ihvertfald da selv set 3 gange

Jeg synes dog ikke, at mærker bør være dyrere, fordi de er stærke. Man skal ikke give 150-200 kr. for frimærker, bare fordi det påstås, at de indeholder 400 mics, hvilket de garanteret heller ikke gør.

Nej, der er forskel på, hvor meget aktivt LSD de indeholder. Jeg synes dog ikke, at mærker bør være dyrere, fordi de er stærke. Man skal ikke give 150-200 kr. for frimærker, bare fordi det påstås, at de indeholder 400 mics, hvilket de garanteret heller ikke gør. Ligesom jeg ikke mener, at man skal give 200 kr. for amfetamin, selvom det så er 98% rent. Stærke stoffer er en god ting, men man skal da ikke betale ekstra for det. Det burde være en selvfølge, at produktet er i orden.

Jeg er enig i at man aldrig bør give 150-200kr. for et frimærke, men de stærkere mærker er dyrere i alle led af kæden fra producent til bruger, end de svagere så det er ikke så mærkeligt at der er en forskel. Hvor stor den er afhænger selvfølgelig af hvor mange og hvor grådige led det har været igennem. SWIMs kamel påstår at LSD nogen steder ligges i 3 forskellige styrker, den billigste koster ca. halvdelen af den dyreste, og den middelstærke omkring 2/3.

Så et måltid på en af danmarks dyreste restauranter burde kun koste det samme som på McD?

ThirdEyeFlood, beklager mig sure opstød, havde nok fået det forkerte ben ud af sengen den dag.

Sådan som jeg forstår det dog, har han mødt hippier der med diverse gasarter, rent kemisk syntesere lsd til et festival?

Er 200 kr meget for et mærke som man er blæst på i omkring 7-8 timer?

I forhold til måske 5 piller for samme pris, hvor man end ik når de 7-8 timer.. Der drejer det sig måske om 3 timer..

In a private correspondence, Dr Alexander T. Shulgin, a professor of toxicology at the University of California at Berkeley commented:

In the usual analysis of LSD (such as done at PharmChem Foundation) one chromatographs an extract of the suspected drug, observes the resulting separation under UV light, and then sprays the plate with some color-generating agent such as paradimethylaminobenzaldehyde (PDAB). If there are impurities present that fluoresce (such as lysergic acid or iso-LSD) and that have mobility in the chromatographic separation, they will be seen. If impurities are present that have the intact indole-2-hydrogen atom, they will give blue to purple colors with PDAB. Both tests require, of course, that there are amounts present sufficient to be seen. But if the impurity does not fluoresce (as is known to occur with lumi-LSD or any of the photoaddition products) or will not react with PDAB (as would be found with 2-substituted impurities such as 2-oxo-ergots), then they (the impurities) would remain invisible. It is completely possible that an LSD sample could be grossly contaminated with impurities and, if they did not give any response to one of these two tests, it is highly likely that their presence would never even be suspected.

Again, it would be helpful if street-drug analysis groups started looking for by-product impurities and established criteria for psychedelic chemical purity. They must stop labeling their impure samples "LSD", a habit that suggests purity and thereby creates much confusing in the public mind and among drug writers. Instead they must clearly distinguish between street acid and pure, pharmaceutical LSD. And if they cannot afford the equipment to test LSD (mass spectrometers and electron microscopes), then they should let the public know about their true capacities. For that matter, none of the commercially sold drug-testing kits is capable of determining purity.

Many early LSD users later gave up on acid and tried other methods of consciousness-expansion as available LSD became impure. They thought that LSD did not work any more, or blamed their heads, not realizing it was a change in the nature of the actual chemical. Thus, the increasing number of impurities led many people to repress the mystical experiences they had had, and retreat to a comfortable, "cool" conformity. Or they turned to Eastern gurus and Jesus movements.

I suspect that impurities give people body trips (euphoria) rather than the pure mind trips of LSD (ecstasy). People turned to other euphoria-producing drugs (pot is on of these) because street acid fell into the realm of dishonest dealing games and lost the spiritual qualities of LSD. Just the fact that LSD did not work any more led people into attempts to escape from the all-too-static reality via coke, pot, tranquilizers, alcohol and smack.

As experiences changed, the emphasis among the makers and distributors of LSD changed. In the beginning, the main motivation was spiritual - to turn people on. Much LSD was given for free, and dealing was just an amateur pastime. As LSD became another in a long list of body drugs, avarice polluted the spiritual stream.

The real responsibility for all this lies not with the underground, or even the public, victims of brainwashing with beer and TV, but with the government. Today, a small elite of government-sanctioned scientists controls LSD in the United States. Despite the good their limited research does, their exclusive and narrow-sighted use of these drugs seems sad in the face of the much greater good that psychedelics could do if more widely used. Many suggestions for more rational use include making LSD a prescription drug, creating LSD centers or making LSD a patent medicine.

The psychedelic movement, which has been in eclipse for ten years, will remain dormant until people can get LSD of known strength and purity. Until then, if you are an acidhead, chances are you've never taken LSD.

Artiklen er udgivet i 1977.. Spørgsmålet fra mig må vel så være, hvor mange af jer mener at det "LSD" i indtager er rent pharmaceutisk LSD.. Og ikke bare "gade-syre" som der ifgl. Eisner, Shulgin og andre er en virkningsmæssig kæmpe forskel på ift. den dengang lovligt producerede rene LSD??

Myth Debunking & Storage:
LSD Purity
by Earth & Fire Erowid
June 2006
Erowid Extracts #10
Citation: Erowid E, Erowid F. "LSD Purity." Erowid Extracts. Jun 2006;10:22-23.
Whether or not there is any "real" d-LSD available on the underground market is a debate that recurs cyclically. Most informed people in the field dismiss the occasional flare-up of claims that those who have only had street acid after the 1970s have never had "pure acid". This claim is often accompanied by related claims that modern street acid is badly made, contaminated, degraded, or something other than LSD altogether. There are further speculations about whether even minute impurities could affect the receptor binding of LSD and therefore change the experience, or how LSD degrades over time, possibly converting active LSD into lumi-LSD, iso-LSD, or other less-well-known degradation products that might alter the effects of the material.

It is our job to take such debates seriously and to try to add data to them wherever possible. Six years ago, we attempted to start an LSD Testing Project, but the complexity of the actual testing procedure coupled with a fear of the Drug Enforcement Administration by the labs licensed and capable of doing such testing meant that we were only able to get a single sample analyzed. Recently, an event occurred that provides some additional data in this slowly evolving debate.

An unopened, brown-glass vial of 1951 Sandoz LSD-25 (Delysid) was contributed to a gathering in celebration of Albert Hofmann's 100th birthday. The vial had been in the possession of a single person for the last 30+ years, stored casually, mostly in darkness. When opened, the powder was a very light brown-sugar to salmon color. One chemist described the fluffy, clumpy, sparkly crystalline powder as looking like "crushed needles". It was weighed and dissolved into four-ounce liquid doses containing between 100 and 110 micrograms each (± 10%).

Storage & Degradation
Although the vial was completely sealed, without cracks, one of the major questions was whether there would be significant loss of potency by degradation as a result of the 55 years that had passed since it was manufactured. After trying it, the predominant opinion among the more than 70 participants and observers was that there was no detectable loss in potency. This was the clearest result from the reported experiment: air-tight brown glass appears to be a very effective long-term storage method for LSD. After 55 years, stored at varying room temperatures, the LSD seemed to be fully potent.

Is Sandoz LSD Different?
The other major question on many people's minds seemed to be how Sandoz LSD would differ from the street acid they'd taken before. This was something a number of them considered, after the initial surprise over the fact that the material seemed not to have lost potency. We asked several participants to further describe their thoughts, by answering the query:
"Briefly describe your experience with LSD (number of times taken, how long ago first taken) and compare your experience of other sources of acid with the Sandoz material you tried. Was the Sandoz LSD different than street acid? Was it about the same? Share some of your thoughts about this."
Some people appeared hesitant to answer whether they felt that the Sandoz LSD was qualitatively different from other acid they had taken. Several participants were moderately concerned that if they said the LSD seemed similar to other street acid, the observation could potentially sadden other participants or appear ungrateful to the extremely generous provider. There were raves about the unquestioned magic of the event, and the unique opportunity to try such an elusive and mythically sourced substance. 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. Unfortunately, this subjective finding is unlikely to satisfy people who believe that street acid is impure and low quality. There could be two reasons why the effects of the Sandoz LSD were nearly identical to that of street LSD: good quality street acid could be as pure as Sandoz LSD, or the Sandoz LSD could have been impure or degraded. However, participants described feeling, both during and after the experience, that the quality was high and the potency undamaged; they considered the argument "street acid isn't really like pure LSD" to be settled.


Following are short comments from four people who tried the 1951 Sandoz LSD.


I first tried acid about 12 years ago and have taken it a total of around 40 times. I've had blotter, microdots, and liquid LSD. The quality has varied from time to time and batch to batch, with some notable paper seeming to be clearly different than others and some seeming better. I heard about the debate regarding whether street acid was "real d-LSD" before I had ever tried it, but the resources I looked at in the early 1990s seemed to indicate that the material sold on blotter was, in fact, LSD.

I was excited about trying the material from Sandoz. I had no idea what to expect. I took an amount (in liquid) that was measured to be 150-170 µg of LSD, that is, if the crystalline material in the vial was 100% d-LSD. I have never had precisely measured LSD, but I had tried some of the brown microdots that were going around that looked like the ones Erowid wrote about in their LSD Analysis article in 2003, which said they were around 21 µg each. Four to six of those matched up with my previous experiences of a single hit of "strong" blotter.

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


I've had the pleasure of taking LSD more than 35 times over the past 15 years. I'm usually pretty careful about the quality of the material, as careful as I can be given that the process is to buy strips of blotter from a friend and go on their word that the quality is good.

Probably two thirds of my acid trips have been with blotter and the other third split between microdots or liquid. Overall, I've been very happy with the quality. I've never gotten inactive acid, and the weakest stuff I've ever had was described that way before I bought it, so I knew what I was getting. 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. But despite the moderate variety in my experiences, and the vague sense that one batch seems a little different than the next, it's certainly possible that it's all just normal variation in effects from pure LSD.

But I've also heard the stories that pure LSD, like Sandoz LSD or "orange sunshine" from the '60s, was somehow so much better than what's available today. So when I got the chance to try the 1951 Sandoz LSD, I was really interested to see what it would be like. I wondered if it would be weak, degraded. Or would it be way stronger than what we all expected, since it was the real deal? 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


I first took LSD in 1984 while in high school. Since then, I have dropped acid perhaps sixty times, mainly in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Dealers back then usually claimed the "per hit" dose was 100 µg. Later in life I learned that this probably wasn't the case. However, most of the hits that I got were of similar potency, at least. Only once did I get some shit that was about half as strong as the hits I was used to.

I have taken "micro doses" a few times-perhaps 10-15 µg. Some friends swear by this use as a daily stimulant, increasing the dose slightly each day. I never warmed to this approach. It always created a feeling of not being comfortable in my own skin-tight and anxious, with trouble falling asleep afterwards. Side effects produced by LSD seem more pronounced when I take lower doses, since the main thing that I am getting from it is basically the side effects.

When I reach my "full dose" level-approximately 150 µg or above-my experiences are always within the scope of effects described in the LSD literature: from heavenly bliss voyages, to giggle fits, to psychological introspection, to hellish nightmares. I attribute the variance in effects to set and setting. I have never understood when people bitched about "bad acid", or how certain acid produced more physical side effects than other "cleaner" acid. This has not been the case for me: the range of effects and side effects has been consistent, regardless of the source, and dependent on the dose that I took.

While acid was my drug of choice in my late teens and early twenties, I haven't taken it frequently since then. But of course I jumped at an opportunity to try Sandoz material. Since I saw the powder being weighed, and was privy to the dosing calculations and titration, I feel comfortable that I got reasonably close to 100 µg. I chose to take this lighter dose due to the party environment that I was in, and also so that I could obtain some better sense as to what a "known dose" of 100 µg feels like. I spent an enjoyable evening with friends and acquaintances, sharing a lot of laughter. Visuals were in full effect, but there was nothing transpersonal at this level. At one point, I was absolutely certain of a question that a friend was about to ask me, and then he asked it-a strange bit of telepathy, since the inquiry wasn't related directly to anything we were talking about. So there was some of that "magic" present that makes one want to believe that anything is possible.

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. - Fork


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