• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

  • Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

2-methyl-2-butanol (2M2B) "Vodka"

This stuff used to be used in professional setting as a sedative, I'm sure it doesn't have a dangerous dose curve or anything.
Click to expand...

*facepalm*
 
yeah. Even with a limited medicinal run, there are plenty of pharmaceuticals with steep dose response curves.
 
Hammilton said:
yeah. Even with a limited medicinal run, there are plenty of pharmaceuticals with steep dose response curves.
Click to expand...

I know this, but I can not find any source that says it dose have a steep response curve... No need to facepalm on me. LOL

I'm saying since it was used medically, there would be some literature as far as dose response...

As far as literature goes, it is 20X more potent than ethyl alcohol.
This makes it in between paraldahyde and chloral hydrate

Consume five, you aren't clearly sedated to your preference, 10 ml should be twice as much intoxication and the perfect dose. I read two other forums.
They say it is more of a chill mode than ethanol.
 
Consume five, you aren't clearly sedated to your preference, 10 ml should be twice as much intoxication and the perfect dose. I read two other forums.
They say it is more of a chill mode than ethanol.
Click to expand...

Twice as intoxicated is very unlikely. These things almost always follow curves- and that's a pretty substantial dose. If you're using oxycodone and you're finding that a thirty milligram dose is just active for you, do you go and take sixty? Christ no! Take forty. If that's not enough, you maybe try fifty, but you don't just jump to sixty.

I may take 150mg of diphenhydramine each night, but if it stops working at all, I'm not going to jump to 300!

Suggesting anyone double their dose for a relatively unknown compound is a very dangerous thing to do.

I understand why you want to think that having made it into pharmaceutical use you'd want to think that it had been well researched. The truth is that it hasn't, though. Yes, it's been used medicinally, but that was the stone ages of neuropharmacology. You're literally looking at research that was done over 100 years ago. Christ, there's some over 120 years old! That's not just old, that's ancient. It's hard enough to trust studies that were done in the 70's. Anything published before 1960 should be looked at extremely carefully. Bioassays were used frequently, and subject reporting relied heavily upon. They lacked virtually all of the technology we'd consider essential.

This isn't even a drug that was used much. Chloral hydrate was used heavily, and amylene hydrate never seemed to catch on, and didn't survive into the modern pharmacopoeia. As such, it's virtually impossible to find useful research on its psychoactive properties. It's possible that none exist.

It may be that in this case doubling the dose would be fine. No matter what though, for an obscure, barely studied drug, it's extremely dangerous to recommend doubling the dose, especially when doubling the dose.

I've always been uneasy about suggesting doses, and for good reason. That person dies after you told him how much to take, and you've committed manslaughter in many states. Even if you were never prosecuted (it is unlikely you would be), do you think you could live with that guilt? I don't think I could.
 
Hammilton said:
Twice as intoxicated is very unlikely. These things almost always follow curves- and that's a pretty substantial dose. If you're using oxycodone and you're finding that a thirty milligram dose is just active for you, do you go and take sixty? Christ no! Take forty. If that's not enough, you maybe try fifty, but you don't just jump to sixty.

I may take 150mg of diphenhydramine each night, but if it stops working at all, I'm not going to jump to 300!

Suggesting anyone double their dose for a relatively unknown compound is a very dangerous thing to do.

I understand why you want to think that having made it into pharmaceutical use you'd want to think that it had been well researched. The truth is that it hasn't, though. Yes, it's been used medicinally, but that was the stone ages of neuropharmacology. You're literally looking at research that was done over 100 years ago. Christ, there's some over 120 years old! That's not just old, that's ancient. It's hard enough to trust studies that were done in the 70's. Anything published before 1960 should be looked at extremely carefully. Bioassays were used frequently, and subject reporting relied heavily upon. They lacked virtually all of the technology we'd consider essential.

This isn't even a drug that was used much. Chloral hydrate was used heavily, and amylene hydrate never seemed to catch on, and didn't survive into the modern pharmacopoeia. As such, it's virtually impossible to find useful research on its psychoactive properties. It's possible that none exist.

It may be that in this case doubling the dose would be fine. No matter what though, for an obscure, barely studied drug, it's extremely dangerous to recommend doubling the dose, especially when doubling the dose.

I've always been uneasy about suggesting doses, and for good reason. That person dies after you told him how much to take, and you've committed manslaughter in many states. Even if you were never prosecuted (it is unlikely you would be), do you think you could live with that guilt? I don't think I could.
Click to expand...

You have simply taken this too far. This is not as potent as oxycodone or diphenhydramine and cannot be compared as such. This is a alcohol and should be treated as a alcohol. Even back then the dosage was still in the grams. Now I can see if he had the substance nearly pure (Strong doubt as it came from a RC company.) He is totally fine. If it was pure, 5ml would have had him literally wasted. The chemical he has is diluted.
 
Psychedelic Jay said:
He is totally fine. If it was pure, 5ml would have had him literally wasted. The chemical he has is diluted.
Click to expand...

All the more reason to go carefully if you don't really know how much you're taking.

I agree this may not need the same caution as a sensitive psychedelic, but doubling the dose when the orginal was effective could be nasty.
 
No, it's a drug, and should be treated as a drug. If there was a big family of closely related compounds that had their psychoactive properties properly assessed in humans, basing recommendations on these similar compounds would be one thing, but there isn't. None of these alcohols have been well studied as psychoactives, excepting ethanol itself, but there's a pretty big difference between ethanol and amylene hydrate. You haven't looked at the "research" you're talking about, either though.

Even back then the dosage was still in the grams.
Click to expand...

Even back then? We haven't changed much as a species in 120 years. What relevance does this have? Can you find reports of 10ml being used?

he chemical he has is diluted.
Click to expand...

Another assumption. Based on... nothing concrete. could be accurate, but it could just as easily be something else. Since this person doesn't even know if he actually has amylene hydrate because he's not actually done any testing. Hell, it could be n-butanol. No one knows.

Recommending doses based upon such terribly limited information is extremely dangerous, and anyone who suggests otherwise is simply too dense to listen to.
 
drop some chromic acid in that bitch; if a blue-green-grayish precipitate foms, it's not 2m2b
 
Hammilton said:
No, it's a drug, and should be treated as a drug. If there was a big family of closely related compounds that had their psychoactive properties properly assessed in humans, basing recommendations on these similar compounds would be one thing, but there isn't. None of these alcohols have been well studied as psychoactives, excepting ethanol itself, but there's a pretty big difference between ethanol and amylene hydrate. You haven't looked at the "research" you're talking about, either though.



Even back then? We haven't changed much as a species in 120 years. What relevance does this have? Can you find reports of 10ml being used?



Another assumption. Based on... nothing concrete. could be accurate, but it could just as easily be something else. Since this person doesn't even know if he actually has amylene hydrate because he's not actually done any testing. Hell, it could be n-butanol. No one knows.

Recommending doses based upon such terribly limited information is extremely dangerous, and anyone who suggests otherwise is simply too dense to listen to.
Click to expand...

I'm only saying that if he does in fact have Methyl Butanol.

Other than that, he shouldn't be taking it at all...
10ml of pure Methyl Butanol will be beautiful to anyone, I can guarantee it!

It is still information none the less... Anyone with brains can build on the info laid out as plain as day... 1/2 ounce/ 15ml is the starting dose...
 
No, you're suggesting that he take double the dose of what he has based upon the information he has given. You're making assumptions about the quality of the product he has based on that information.

He hasn't done any sort of chemical analysis, so who the fuck knows what he has. As a result, there can be only one course: start low, and work up slowly. Don't suddenly start doubling doses after you've reached activity.
 
Hammilton said:
No, you're suggesting that he take double the dose of what he has based upon the information he has given. You're making assumptions about the quality of the product he has based on that information.

He hasn't done any sort of chemical analysis, so who the fuck knows what he has. As a result, there can be only one course: start low, and work up slowly. Don't suddenly start doubling doses after you've reached activity.
Click to expand...

There is no way it isn't diluted...

If I were next to you, I would bet five dollars he has some diluted material...
 
I like how you keep arguing something else. Instead of saying "yeah, it's obviously stupid to suggest someone double their dose when they a) are taking what is supposed to be a hardly studied compound b) aren't positive that it is what it is supposed to be c) aren't sure of purity and d) have already reached a psychoactive dose" you're saying "I'd bet you money that it was diluted!"

Regardless, you're still missing the point (and that's probably why you don't post in ADD often). We're not talking about what things probably are and aren't probably. That you offer a bet illustrates it exactly. This isn't a conversation about what an N-ethyl substitution would do to 2C-B. It's about what the safest way for this guy to proceed.

I agree that it's probably amylene hydrate. It's probably significantly diluted (it'd be amazing if it wasn't). Going from 5ml to 10ml probably won't kill the guy. They're all "probably's," they're not definites by any means. We can't even definitely say it's amylene hydrate.

You remember what people keep saying? This is a harm reduction site. The goal is to help people make the best decisions they can with the available information. Going slow and slowly increasing the dose is the only responsible suggestion. Telling someone to just double their dose is an awful and dangerous suggestion. It's such an indefensible position to take that I honestly can't tell if you actually believe that it's a responsible suggestion given the available information or just hate to lose an argument.
 
see here for in-situ preparation of chromic acid. I think they call it the Jones reagent.

messy shit that orange stuff; spill it on a lab coat and it's as resilient as silver nitrate
 
seep said:
see here for in-situ preparation of chromic acid. I think they call it the Jones reagent.

messy shit that orange stuff; spill it on a lab coat and it's as resilient as silver nitrate
Click to expand...

One could also use the Lucas reagent (conc. hydrochloric acid saturated with zinc chloride) to test for tertiary alcohols. When the reagent is mixed with a tert. alcohol, a water-insoluble nonpolar layer of alkyl chloride forms immediately.
 
just a word of warning: the best alcohol to stick to is ethanol.

i tried isopropanol, which may sound stupid but like 2-methyl-2-butanol it is a longer chain alcohol more potent by weight than ethanol with stonger sedative effects.

these alcohols have hangovers from hell, and truly make you feel disgusting after a while.

i do note however i have not tried 2-methyl-2-butanol, but being a longer chain alcohol like isopropanol may give it some bad side effects(as well as being more toxic than ethanol).
 
StaySedated said:
just a word of warning: the best alcohol to stick to is ethanol.

i tried isopropanol, which may sound stupid but like 2-methyl-2-butanol it is a longer chain alcohol more potent by weight than ethanol with stonger sedative effects.

these alcohols have hangovers from hell, and truly make you feel disgusting after a while.

i do note however i have not tried 2-methyl-2-butanol, but being a longer chain alcohol like isopropanol may give it some bad side effects(as well as being more toxic than ethanol).
Click to expand...

Like I told you before, I have tried isopropanol too. The only side-effect I got was the nasty smell of acetone I could smell in my own breath the day after I took it. But I took only a 50ml dose... Tertiary alcohols like 2m2b aren't metabolized in the liver, they are instead excreted unchanged in the urine, because they are resistant to oxidation. Therefore there won't be any toxic metabolites when you take tertiary alcohols and the hangover is likely to be less bad.
 
Hammilton said:
I like how you keep arguing something else. Instead of saying "yeah, it's obviously stupid to suggest someone double their dose when they a) are taking what is supposed to be a hardly studied compound b) aren't positive that it is what it is supposed to be c) aren't sure of purity and d) have already reached a psychoactive dose" you're saying "I'd bet you money that it was diluted!"

Regardless, you're still missing the point (and that's probably why you don't post in ADD often). We're not talking about what things probably are and aren't probably. That you offer a bet illustrates it exactly. This isn't a conversation about what an N-ethyl substitution would do to 2C-B. It's about what the safest way for this guy to proceed.

I agree that it's probably amylene hydrate. It's probably significantly diluted (it'd be amazing if it wasn't). Going from 5ml to 10ml probably won't kill the guy. They're all "probably's," they're not definites by any means. We can't even definitely say it's amylene hydrate.

You remember what people keep saying? This is a harm reduction site. The goal is to help people make the best decisions they can with the available information. Going slow and slowly increasing the dose is the only responsible suggestion. Telling someone to just double their dose is an awful and dangerous suggestion. It's such an indefensible position to take that I honestly can't tell if you actually believe that it's a responsible suggestion given the available information or just hate to lose an argument.
Click to expand...

I could truly care less about the argument...
Not in a disrespectful way, of course...
 
polymath said:
Like I told you before, I have tried isopropanol too. The only side-effect I got was the nasty smell of acetone I could smell in my own breath the day after I took it. But I took only a 50ml dose... Tertiary alcohols like 2m2b aren't metabolized in the liver, they are instead excreted unchanged in the urine, because they are resistant to oxidation. Therefore there won't be any toxic metabolites when you take tertiary alcohols and the hangover is likely to be less bad.
Click to expand...

This also means that people with kidney disease are in deep shit if they dose too high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top