daanniiThe holy journey
Help me out. What is this picture and what should I know.
I am guessing he has some sort of drugs on his tongue? Could use a couple more pixels.
Snot FlickermanLSD is often distributed on small pieces of paper that you dose by putting them on your tongue and letting them dissolve.
It appears that this young man is attempting to “break on through to the other side” so he can “see” Allah.
treadfulLSD usually comes soaked into small clips of paper usually just called ‘tabs’, which come initially as sheets with tear lines seperating. You tear off one, pop it on your tongue, and suck on it.
This guy had two tabs from the look of it and is about to probably have a very spiritual experience.
alternatively you can just keep a tab on your tongue or between your gums and you won’t have to wait a few hours, just roughly one hour
(lsd absorbs wherever it is in your body, but your mouth is closer to your brain where you want it ending up)
Nah, from personal experience of hundreds upon hundreds of trips your come up time doesn’t have any noticable time increase or decrease depending on where you keep the tab. The only thing I’ve ever had change the speed of the come up, was potency of the tab, aka quantity of LSD, not the location of it. Sure, if you took it intravenously it would likely go noticably faster, but otherwise any time difference would be practically negligible between consistent doses.
huh alright, i remember reading somewhere that it’d take longer/have worse effects if you sucked on a tab instead of just keeping it rested somewhere in your mouth. never really thought to look up if it’s true or not as yk, keeping a piece of paper rested on my gums is just easy so, always went with that
JoeBigelowMost people aren’t willing to risk inactivity when they paid $10 a dose and only bought enough for everyone to take 1. I remember those days. I also remember playing with a vial.
Lsd is often distributed and consumed via small paper squares called blotter paper. The paper is thick like cardstock. Sometimes with colorful psychedelic artwork printed on it.
The lsd is diluted in a solution and the paper is soaked in the solution. Usually alcohol.
The tiny microscopic lsd crystals deposit on the paper. The blotter paper is divided into 1cm squares.
Lsd is neutralized by many chemicals , including chlorine (found in tap water) and stomach enzymes. It cannot be swallowed and still have an effect.
To take LSD, a person will place squares (typically one square is 1x 100ug dose) of the paper on the tounge or under it. And hold for about 15 minutes. Some people take more than one. It can’t kill you. But it can lead to accidents in high doses that can kill you. So it’s not risk free even if health risks are low.
Also I said ug. Not mg. The lsd drug is very unique in that it has high potency at micrograms. Fentanyl is another drug that has that property . But it is rare.
The lining of the mouth (mucus membranes) allows for easy transfer of the drug into the blood stream. That’s true for a lot of drugs actually.
This is why lsd has such a unique drug delivery method though. It can’t be swallowed and it should be used in very small doses.
Lsd is also very resistant to degeneration. Oxygen, sunlight, and neutralizing chemicals like chlorine can degrade it. But if it’s stored properly it can last a very very long time. This is another rare property it has.
It’s also clear, tasteless, and no odor.
I’m a perception researcher and , of course, this would be a drug on my radar. So I know quite a bit about it. I’ve given a lecture on psychedelics. It’s a fascinating topic.
Also I’m generally interested in psycho-pharmacology because , well, it’s interesting.
If you want to learn more interesting facts about LSD and other psychedelics, ask away.
Pat_RiotYes, but… it’s really hard to stay focused. Everything is kinda awesome to look at, so I have forgotten about the stars and zoned on my surroundings or my hand or a hundred other things. I like tripping in the woods or at the beach best personally.
Novelty is a common effect that people don’t talk about much. Essentially it makes everything seem new and novel.
What’s interesting is, in the brain there is a specific spike in electrical activity (called event related potential, or ERP) that happens when you look at something new and unexpected. Some call it the novelty indicator. Designated P3a.
You can measure it with eeg equipment (electrodes on the scalp).
I’d be really interested to see if that ERP is happening more on LSD. It might shed more light on the mechanisms of the drug. If it doesn’t happen, then it would challenge the theory of what the P3a is.
I personally think LSD has a lot of potential to be used to research perception processing in the brain.
Too bad it’s basically impossible to get approval to use it for that reason.
I believe the phrase is taking an lsd
And where do we get it 😂
explodicleDark web
driving_croonerThey’re divided in 0.5x0.5 cm.
You can totally eat a tab and still get high.
Nowadays is hard to find 100ug doses. The minimum I had found is 150ug. Anything over 400ug isn’t LSD but Nbomb that is dangerous and should be avoided.
Ugh I do not miss 25i. Put a blotter on my tongue, taste it IMMEDIATELY, spit that shit out.
(This might have been mentioned and crooner definitely already knows this, but to others interested: LSD has zero taste at all. It just tastes like the paper it’s on (or gummy, faint grain alcohol if you’ve got a vial, etc)
Bitters a spitter, gimme my money back
I gave up on LSD because it lasted way too long and finished not enjoying it, until talking with a friend I commented that I also hated the sour flavor of it and he was like dude that was nbomb not LSD. Then he gave me some actual LSD and it was way more pleasure experience, not as high, but didn’t extend as long and the landing was confortable.
Incorrect about acid in the stomach. Most DOX and nbome chems are neutralized by stomach acid and during the mid 2010 acid drought swallowing tabs was considered the simplest way to avoid unwanted DOX trips.
Source: the hundreds of tabs that I swallowed and still had a good time
I took DOC back in the 00s (on purpose) and it was an extremely wild 20-some hours. Second weirdest thing I’ve done (the weirdest is Foxy by a WIDE margin,) but I still had a relatively good time due to having a great and comfortable set and setting. By hour ten, I was VERY ready to be done.
I was too poor to care, been on plenty of non acid trips on chems that lasted wayyy too long. Some were really fun, some were abject terror. Never got to try foxy sadly. MXE was the strangest chem I’ve tried and holey hell, I turned into an interdimentional worm crawling through the multiverse. It was super overwhelming.
I never tried MXE! I wanted to as I have enjoyed ket in the past, but the times I was offered MXE, I just eas not in the right headspace/environment.
Foxy is fucking insane. It had the normal visual and auditory hallucinations, but it’s the only thing I’ve ever tried that gave me full on temporal distortions. My partner-at-the-time and I were listening to familiar music. The music would get lower in pitch and streeeetch out, each individual note playing for longer and longer, until the tone went back to normal and the notes stopped being played for so long. When it was low and slow, our bodies got soooo heavy, we would just lay on the floor. When the notes got fast and higher pitched, our bodies would be light with energy. VERY weird stuff.
MXE and ket are really different. The hole threshold and the visual nature are way stronger ime
Most drugs/medicines are taken in higher doses because the body filters or neutralizes the compounds so much that only a small portion gets into the blood.
That’s still different.
Even if the total quantity of the drug is small in the system once it gets there, it’s not the same as how LSD works. The drug, likely because of its similarity to serotonin and size , is readily absorbed into the blood stream and passes the blood brain barrier easily. It is not filtered out to a small percentage of it’s original dose like most drugs/medicines.
You surely are aware of this ?
There are very few drugs that can work in small dosages like LSD. As I said, fentanyl is one.
I’m not sure what you are talking about with dox trips.
Drugs like DMT /Ayahuasca also can’t be ingested unless they are mixed with a maoi inhibitor.
Most psychedelic research chemicals (nbome) are much different than lsd with different pharm and effect properties.
It’s possible that LSD is released more quickly on the tongue than nbome drugs. So as soon as it hits the tounge the drug is delivered. I don’t think there is research on this. But I’ll look into it.
But this idea that it’s not neutralized in the stomach is false. There is plenty of research on that.
Look up Clonazepam, I’m not going to argue with somebody that is as confidently incorrect as you are. I have a decade and a half of subjective experience and personal research into the chemicals I have put into my body, and spent countless hours talking with people that know even more than I do. Yes, LSD is very active in small amounts. So are plenty of other chemicals and calling it unique because of that is incorrect.
Also, stomach acid does nothing to neutralize LSD in any meaningful way, please stop saying that.
tomiantYour stomach acid will definitely neutralize it. But after having it on your tongue for a while the drug has been deposited into your system.
That is incorrect
You’re confidently wrong:
www.sciencedirect.com/…/S2772632023000338
www.sciencedirect.com/…/S2772632023000338
Mate the first line of that publication is flat wrong
This review is on lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which has a halogenic effect and is addictive.
LSD is not addictive. I’m not going to bother reading any farther after such a ridiculous claim.
Couldn’t help myself, this is 2 sentences later
The final decision about whether it is addictive or not is undecided.
How do these people take themselves seriously!?
Well literally anything can be addictive. People are addicted to gambling, to buying things online. To buying action figures or labubus.
But because lsd does not cause euphoria effects, it’s not typically considered chemically addictive. But there is not a complete consensus on this in the scientific field. Because it can still be behaviorally addictive. But as I said. Literally anything can be behaviorally addictive so that’s almost a moot point.
Honestly, damn. That sounds like a very interesting topic. If I wanted to learn more what resources would you recommend? (preferably textbooks/articles)
You know there isn’t much in a single location aside from Wikipedia.
In textbooks I’ve come across , there is discussion of the pharmacology properties or a brief note about counter culture and general effects.
There is limited research on the drug as it’s been black listed for almost 50 years and even now, it’s primarily only researched for terminally ill people/mental health. Only a handful of those studies exist and none use double blind controls so the science quality is poor.
I myself am not convinced it has mental health benefits due to the way the drug works. It does however have strong suggestive effects meaning the drug itself promotes placebo/expectation effects.
The lecture I put together for my class (perception and sensation ) pulled info from a wide range of resources.
However there is one organization trying it’s best to do modern research and they have done some MRI studies. There was also a study on LSD and synesthesia which sheds a lot of light into the mechanisms. MAPS is the organization. maps.org
They have videos on YouTube with researchers discussing the research and studies they have done. But they mostly focus (last few years at least) on it’s use in mental health.
The drug property information I know about is mostly pulled from old research from the 60s before the research bans. A lot was done on animals to understand dosage and half life. The cascade effects of how this drug works are still not really understood. We do know that the drug is similar in structure to serotonin. But there are still a lot of unknowns.
Let me dig around for my resource links. I have a few interesting studies I found when preparing the lecture, including the synesthesia one, and I’ll organize it all and I’ll put a link up to a g drive with it.
The lecture I did was 3 hrs long about hallucinations with a chunk dedicated to psychedelics. It did rely on other lecture materials to understand or otherwise id just put it up. (It was the final lecture for the class so it referred back multiple times to previous lessons). But maybe I can re-write it a bit. I’ve honestly been thinking of turning it into a video for a while because there are so few resources out there that review it more broadly. And a hell of a lot of misinformation about hallucinations and psychedelics.
Basically this lecture was on hallucinations and the primary causes and how each of these causes relies on the same root changes in brain processing.
For instance. You are driving on a country road at night. Vigilant to look for deer. Multiple times you were sure you saw an animal near the road but soon realized it was a fence post. Or an old glass bottle reflecting your headlamps. But for a split moment you did see an animal there before you corrected the perception.
What ultimately caused that is what causes hallucinations in other situations. Like schizophrenia and drug use.
So we circle around neuroscience, psychiatry, physiology, and pharmacology. As well as cultural impacts influencing the experience of hallucinations or psychedelics.
This is getting long. Apologies. The lecture is 3 hrs and relies on many other hours of information. It’s a big topic.
All this and you don’t even link to erowid?
www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd.shtml
You don’t seem like a very good researcher.
also, PsychonautWiki…
LSD
Lysergic acid diethylamide (also known as Lysergide, LSD-25, LSD, L, Lucy, and Acid) is a classical psychedelic substance of the lysergamide class.[2] It is perhaps the most researched and culturally influential psychedelic substance, as well as the prototypal lysergamide. The mechanism of action is not fully known, although serotonin binding activity is thought to be involved.
Erowid is personal opinions of drug users.
Among other things, including many links to scientific resources.
The definition of a scientific resource is a RESOURCE with scientific observations and reporting that is peer reviewed or has some official review process like a university website with scholars writing the information that is verified by other scholars.
It’s the review process by people who are authorities on the topic that make that distinction. Scholars. Other scientist.
A comment on social media and anecdotal websites hosting forums is not a scientific resource. It’s opinions.
As I said earlier. Something doesn’t have to be scientifically validated to be true or real.
But it does have to be science to be science.
More specifically, experiments must use the scientific method and specific research statistic computations to support hypotheses which then are used to create theories.
Erowid does not have a review process where a senior scientist reviews any of the things posted on it.
Neither does Lemmy or faceb9ok,
Why is review so important?
Because humans are biased and our own subjective interpretation of patterns and events is not objective.
Just to illustrate some of the ways out thinking and interpretation of events is flawed, see cognitive biases on wikipedia.
And there are way more than these. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
And have a look at memory errors while you are at it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_error
Oh and the best one. Bias blind sight. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot
None of us, and I mean literally no one, is immune from these problems. Not me. Not you.
It’s why the only way we know anything for sure is through scientific methods of investigation. And even those aren’t full proof against bias.
I’m sorry that you don’t like the very basic explanation I gave of the properties of a drug you like. Some how that’s offensive to you.
I don’t know what to tell you.
I did get a few minor facts mixed up and i corrected them in the text. I Left in the original text and I crossed it out so that people could see I made a mistake and fixed it. Nothing I said was a huge big mistake about the drug. I misquoted the size of the tabs (10mm vs 5mm) and I was mistaken about it being neutralized in the stomach.
My gawd. Lock me up and send me a $500 fine. Jesus.
Maybe reflect on why it’s so important to you that your narrative of what the drug is, is being attacked from simple facts about how it works.
Why do you care how it works ? Why are you so invested in this? Why does it make you angry when someone explains the drug from a scientific perspective ?
If you don’t want to hear the scientific perspective then just ignore it.
It’s what a lot of people do.
Your links were irrelevant to your argument that erowid is a scientific resource.
It’s not.
Your links were irrelevant to your argument that erowid is a scientific resource.
It’s not.
And where did I make that argument, again?
What exactly is your point ?
First you say I’m not a “real” researcher because I didn’t give erowid as a resource.
I said it’s not scientific. You say “uh yeah it is”. I explain why it’s not and what “scientific” means because a lot of people are actually mis informed on this. And I didn’t want to argue semantics.
And then you say. That .
Are you also incapable of following your own arguments ?
What IS your argument then ?
I never said you weren’t a real researcher. I said you are a bad researcher.
I said this because you claimed there was no place you could find a lot of links to scientific resources outside of Wikipedia. I provided a link to erowid, which has literally thousands of such articles.
I said it’s not scientific. You say “uh yeah it is”
No. I linked to pages with thousands of links to scientific journals. A link which you seemed not to have been aware of.
Are you also incapable of following your own arguments ?
I’m incapable of following what you think my argument is.
What IS your argument then ?
My argument is simply that all the evidence in the comments of this shitpost seem to indicate that you are not a good researcher.
Because erowid does not meet the definition of a resource.
Again.
Links to resources is not itself a scientific resource.
I defined for you multiple times what “scientific resource” means.
Unlike erowid, maps actually conducted scientific research.
That’s why they are listed as a resource.
Even Wikipedia has people review the material.
Erowid does not.
You are uninformed about what science is. You refuse to acknowledge my definition. You know literally nothing about my research capabilities. Maybe I’m terrible at research but you wouldnt know one way or the other.
Which makes your opinion uninformed and therefore irrelevant.
Erowid are opinions of people who use recreational drugs. It’s not written by scientist. Or researchers. And research can be misunderstood by lay people.
As I said. Some of the information may be accurate. Doesn’t matter. It’s still not a scientific resource.
I, as a scientist, would not tell people to use lemmy or reddit to learn about neuroscience. I definitely wouldn’t advise using erowid for the same reasons.
Citing a resource does not make the text a resource.
I love how you’ve moved the goalpost on what a resource is. Erowid being the collection point of many valid, peer reviewed sources doesn’t meet your specific criteria, that ridiculous. That link went directly to a retirement of your argument and you just changed your argument. You are a bad researcher.
I repeatedly clarify the definition.
Have any luck finding peer reviewed papers with erowid references. ?
Maybe it’s cause it’s not a scientific resource.
Being a smartass is a bad look when so much of what you’ve confidently stated is incorrect.