6 ms·

I know "designer drugs" primarily through psychedelic analogues (e.g. 1V-LSD); also, through psychedelic fakes (e.g. NBOMe in place of LSD), which can be fatal.

I know "designer drugs" primarily through psychedelic analogues (e.g. 1V-LSD); also, through psychedelic fakes (e.g. NBOMe in place of LSD), which can be fatal. I don't think either one of these are designed to avoid drug tests, but rather to avoid being technically illegal, so that they can be sold over the clearnet to average people. The fakes are designed to be cheaper to manufacture than the real thing, though not designed to be safe. People have died from overdoses of these analogues (and even from regular doses). You are not supposed to be able to overdose on LSD (at the very least, it should not be able to kill you), so this is pretty bad and unexpected when it happens. It's one of the major reasons why reagent testing is so encouraged by harm reduction communities: if you really want to take some substance, it's very important to make sure you know that you're taking the correct substance in the first place; otherwise, even what very limited bets you would've had are already off. The reagent to test for LSD is usually Ehrlich's reagent, but many reagent kits come with multiple reagents so you can not only verify the presence of LSD but also the absence of other adulterants. One can never really be too safe; the wrong drug can have all sorts of undesired effects, all the way up to potential death (or Parkinson's as in the linked article). https://dancesafe.org https://dancesafe.org

chriscappuccio 2y ago
This case has absolutely nothing to do with LSD or any psychedelic like drug.
- LoganDark 2y ago
  I'm autistic. Terms like 'designer drug' remind me of existing knowledge that I have regarding that subject. I figured I would share some of that knowledge.
  - notpushkin 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure neurotypical people would also share their knowledge in this case.
    - LoganDark 2y ago
      Generally, people who aren't autistic may not understand how autistics associate information with other information, and may get confused when they see me talking about a seemingly unrelated or irrelevant subject in response to seeing a particular piece of information. As far as I could tell that seemed likely to have been the case here, which is why I mentioned my being autistic, because that may help one understand how I happened upon this train of thought under a submission that speaks nothing of psychedelics or LSD whatsoever. (The triggering phrase was 'designer drug', a term which I've also seen used in the context of psychedelics.)
      - hoseja 2y ago
        I don't think mentioning you're autistic actually clears that up. Would probably be better to mention the association thought process without leading with the diagnosis.
        LoganDark 2y ago
        It's cleared up separately, immediately after that mention. The thought process appears obvious because it makes logical sense once explained, but people don't always intuitively infer it, if that makes any sense; it's difficult to explain, but I think my comment was perfectly sufficient. I suppose the mention of autism was meant as a qualifier for the information that follows; sort of a "here is why my brain works this way" before the actual "here is how that comment happened the way that it did".
        borski 2y ago
        While I hear what you’re saying and I agree in general, I think what you’re reading is that in this case the logical jump was fairly obvious with or without the mention of your diagnosis. I have ADHD, and it seemed very obvious to me. That said, you can be as open as you want about your diagnosis. I didn’t think there was anything wrong with your comment.
        2y ago
jojobas 2y ago
If you really want to take some substance, you're still betting your life to get high. If you don't value your own life, why should I?
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  Because people's lives are inherently valuable.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  Animals love to get drunk. Ever see those funny National Geographic videos of monkeys and elephants eating over-ripe fruit and then staggering around, clearly wasted? There's a plausible hypothesis that humans invented agriculture so we could have a more stable source of beer. I drank a boatload of caffeine today. I saw a neighbor vape. We have a long history of using naturally occurring and manufactured drugs. The wide majority of living humans consume psychoactive substances regularly. What's objectively different about our drugs versus theirs? Theirs might be more potent, but in my younger days I made up for that in volume of things like alcohol. Abstinence-only education is an abysmal failure regardless of the subject. "Don't get high" is right up there with "don't have sex" on the list of recommendations that almost no one's going to follow.
  - LoganDark 2y ago
    It's worth noting that sex causes the release of endorphins, which are basically endogenous morphine (i.e. opioids). So telling people not to get high would technically imply they shouldn't have sex either, since that "afterglow" is technically analogous to an opioid high... (albeit, a minor one) > Animals love to get drunk. Dolphins. I love dolphins. Getting high is a social activity for them, much like nearly everything else. They will pass a pufferfish around the group and take turns huffing the toxin in order to get high. It's adorable~
    - sharpshadow 2y ago
      The human has opioid[1] and cannabinoid[2] receptors. This is a reason we cultivate plants which contain these substances which have an effect. Plant (nature/naturally grown) derived substances are generally better received by the body than the in laboratory synthesised equivalent. In case of these designer drugs we changing and appending the original naturally occurring molecules. It’s similar to what the pharma industry does to be able to sell with exorbitant prices, changing and appending the working molecule to get fresh patents. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_receptor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_receptor 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor
anal_reactor 2y ago
> You are not supposed to be able to overdose on LSD (at the very least, it should not be able to kill you) Not true. LSD raises your body temperature, which can be fatal, especially in the summer. "Just take a cold shower" yeah I was too high to come up with this idea, so I was just lying in my bed being miserably hot. I'm not taking a full tab ever again because it fucks my brain to the point I cannot do basic things to ensure my own survival.
- LoganDark 2y ago
  Interesting. I'm sure I've experienced this effect, but I hadn't noticed that it happens to a greater degree than normal; even without LSD, I've always had a problem with overheating: I have a 12,000 BTU air conditioner pointed directly at me at all times, but still somehow manage to sometimes overheat, usually because the thing automatically turns itself off around 61°F. I had modified my last unit to ignore the temperature completely, but as of yet I can't seem to locate the thermistor in this one. (I found at least one of them, but it's somehow the wrong one. Why are there multiple?!) With that said, it would indeed be a problem for you not to be able to think well enough to perform basic self-care. At the very least, LSD is dehydrating as the body attempts to filter it out as urine, so you'd need to get that out and then drink water (or gatorade or something hydrating). I'm sure dehydration would contribute at least partially to the additional body heat. Anyway, you totally don't need LSD to suffer heat stroke in the summer. All I'd need to do is walk outside and stand there for a while. With that said, it's not exactly like generating additional body heat necessarily kills you as long as you can keep yourself cool somehow. Even if you can't, I wouldn't consider the LSD to have been the source of the death, just the overheating, which is a general failure regardless of how the overheating happened (e.g. panic attack, overexertion, etc.).
  - borski 2y ago
    If the overheating happened as a side effect of the acid, and the person had generally never had issues with overheating, it’s a very small jump to say that acid caused it. That said, I’m less convinced that it raises your core body temp enough to kill you.
hnick 2y ago
I've heard of the "technically illegal" thing and find it odd, is that actually true? Over here in Australia I think they just decided it was easier to make them all illegal too, with the schedule saying things like "TETRAHYDROCANNABINOLS and their alkyl homologues" as a catch-all.
- LoganDark 2y ago
  Yes, it's true that LSD analogues such as 1cP-LSD have been technically legal to sell in the United States in the past (and in some parts of Europe, I think). Every time a new analogue gains traction, it gets separately banned by new legislation, but there is no catch-all that bans "all substances that are analogous to LSD or that metabolize into LSD". I believe there is a catch-all that attempts to classify substances by their effects regardless of formula (i.e. any hallucinogenic drug is automatically illegal), but sellers get around that by saying the substance is for research purposes only and not for human consumption; then you simply consume it anyway.
  - temp0826 2y ago
    Isn't this the "catch-all"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act
    - borski 2y ago
      The key line there carrying a lot of weight is “…but only if intended for human consumption.” Market it as “for research only” and that law does not apply.
    - LoganDark 2y ago
      That is indeed the catch-all to which I refer, yes. From my comment: > [...] but sellers get around that by saying the substance is for research purposes only and not for human consumption; then you simply consume it anyway.

chriscappuccio 2y ago

This case has absolutely nothing to do with LSD or any psychedelic like drug.

LoganDark 2y ago
I'm autistic. Terms like 'designer drug' remind me of existing knowledge that I have regarding that subject. I figured I would share some of that knowledge.
- notpushkin 2y ago
  I'm pretty sure neurotypical people would also share their knowledge in this case.
  - LoganDark 2y ago
    Generally, people who aren't autistic may not understand how autistics associate information with other information, and may get confused when they see me talking about a seemingly unrelated or irrelevant subject in response to seeing a particular piece of information. As far as I could tell that seemed likely to have been the case here, which is why I mentioned my being autistic, because that may help one understand how I happened upon this train of thought under a submission that speaks nothing of psychedelics or LSD whatsoever. (The triggering phrase was 'designer drug', a term which I've also seen used in the context of psychedelics.)
    - hoseja 2y ago
      I don't think mentioning you're autistic actually clears that up. Would probably be better to mention the association thought process without leading with the diagnosis.
      - LoganDark 2y ago
        It's cleared up separately, immediately after that mention. The thought process appears obvious because it makes logical sense once explained, but people don't always intuitively infer it, if that makes any sense; it's difficult to explain, but I think my comment was perfectly sufficient. I suppose the mention of autism was meant as a qualifier for the information that follows; sort of a "here is why my brain works this way" before the actual "here is how that comment happened the way that it did".
        borski 2y ago
        While I hear what you’re saying and I agree in general, I think what you’re reading is that in this case the logical jump was fairly obvious with or without the mention of your diagnosis. I have ADHD, and it seemed very obvious to me. That said, you can be as open as you want about your diagnosis. I didn’t think there was anything wrong with your comment.
        2y ago

jojobas 2y ago

If you really want to take some substance, you're still betting your life to get high. If you don't value your own life, why should I?

kerkeslager 2y ago
Because people's lives are inherently valuable.
kstrauser 2y ago
Animals love to get drunk. Ever see those funny National Geographic videos of monkeys and elephants eating over-ripe fruit and then staggering around, clearly wasted? There's a plausible hypothesis that humans invented agriculture so we could have a more stable source of beer. I drank a boatload of caffeine today. I saw a neighbor vape. We have a long history of using naturally occurring and manufactured drugs. The wide majority of living humans consume psychoactive substances regularly. What's objectively different about our drugs versus theirs? Theirs might be more potent, but in my younger days I made up for that in volume of things like alcohol. Abstinence-only education is an abysmal failure regardless of the subject. "Don't get high" is right up there with "don't have sex" on the list of recommendations that almost no one's going to follow.
- LoganDark 2y ago
  It's worth noting that sex causes the release of endorphins, which are basically endogenous morphine (i.e. opioids). So telling people not to get high would technically imply they shouldn't have sex either, since that "afterglow" is technically analogous to an opioid high... (albeit, a minor one) > Animals love to get drunk. Dolphins. I love dolphins. Getting high is a social activity for them, much like nearly everything else. They will pass a pufferfish around the group and take turns huffing the toxin in order to get high. It's adorable~
  - sharpshadow 2y ago
    The human has opioid[1] and cannabinoid[2] receptors. This is a reason we cultivate plants which contain these substances which have an effect. Plant (nature/naturally grown) derived substances are generally better received by the body than the in laboratory synthesised equivalent. In case of these designer drugs we changing and appending the original naturally occurring molecules. It’s similar to what the pharma industry does to be able to sell with exorbitant prices, changing and appending the working molecule to get fresh patents. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_receptor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_receptor 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor

anal_reactor 2y ago

> You are not supposed to be able to overdose on LSD (at the very least, it should not be able to kill you) Not true. LSD raises your body temperature, which can be fatal, especially in the summer. "Just take a cold shower" yeah I was too high to come up with this idea, so I was just lying in my bed being miserably hot. I'm not taking a full tab ever again because it fucks my brain to the point I cannot do basic things to ensure my own survival.

LoganDark 2y ago
Interesting. I'm sure I've experienced this effect, but I hadn't noticed that it happens to a greater degree than normal; even without LSD, I've always had a problem with overheating: I have a 12,000 BTU air conditioner pointed directly at me at all times, but still somehow manage to sometimes overheat, usually because the thing automatically turns itself off around 61°F. I had modified my last unit to ignore the temperature completely, but as of yet I can't seem to locate the thermistor in this one. (I found at least one of them, but it's somehow the wrong one. Why are there multiple?!) With that said, it would indeed be a problem for you not to be able to think well enough to perform basic self-care. At the very least, LSD is dehydrating as the body attempts to filter it out as urine, so you'd need to get that out and then drink water (or gatorade or something hydrating). I'm sure dehydration would contribute at least partially to the additional body heat. Anyway, you totally don't need LSD to suffer heat stroke in the summer. All I'd need to do is walk outside and stand there for a while. With that said, it's not exactly like generating additional body heat necessarily kills you as long as you can keep yourself cool somehow. Even if you can't, I wouldn't consider the LSD to have been the source of the death, just the overheating, which is a general failure regardless of how the overheating happened (e.g. panic attack, overexertion, etc.).
- borski 2y ago
  If the overheating happened as a side effect of the acid, and the person had generally never had issues with overheating, it’s a very small jump to say that acid caused it. That said, I’m less convinced that it raises your core body temp enough to kill you.

hnick 2y ago

I've heard of the "technically illegal" thing and find it odd, is that actually true? Over here in Australia I think they just decided it was easier to make them all illegal too, with the schedule saying things like "TETRAHYDROCANNABINOLS and their alkyl homologues" as a catch-all.

LoganDark 2y ago
Yes, it's true that LSD analogues such as 1cP-LSD have been technically legal to sell in the United States in the past (and in some parts of Europe, I think). Every time a new analogue gains traction, it gets separately banned by new legislation, but there is no catch-all that bans "all substances that are analogous to LSD or that metabolize into LSD". I believe there is a catch-all that attempts to classify substances by their effects regardless of formula (i.e. any hallucinogenic drug is automatically illegal), but sellers get around that by saying the substance is for research purposes only and not for human consumption; then you simply consume it anyway.
- temp0826 2y ago
  Isn't this the "catch-all"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act
  - borski 2y ago
    The key line there carrying a lot of weight is “…but only if intended for human consumption.” Market it as “for research only” and that law does not apply.
  - LoganDark 2y ago
    That is indeed the catch-all to which I refer, yes. From my comment: > [...] but sellers get around that by saying the substance is for research purposes only and not for human consumption; then you simply consume it anyway.