• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Are "Research Chemicals" Being Researched?

Dr. Dave Nichols of Purdue University does a lot of research on 'research chemicals'. He invented bromo-dragonfly, 5,6-MDAI, and some others. He's one of the few people the DEA has allowed to work with Schedule I psychedelics for research purposes.
 
Coolio said:
Dr. Dave Nichols of Purdue University does a lot of research on 'research chemicals'. He invented bromo-dragonfly, 5,6-MDAI, and some others. He's one of the few people the DEA has allowed to work with Schedule I psychedelics for research purposes.
Click to expand...

Dr. Nichols seems to be taking up Dr. Shulgin's mantle, and pushing the envelope some more.

...And about the TCB-2
 
Last edited:
LabRatNW said:
4-HO-DMT is definitely NOT a research chemical. The Aztecs used it for centuries in Mushrooms.
Click to expand...

i know psilocin is in mushrooms. But when eaten as mushrooms there is also baeocystin and psilocybin which provides for a different experience than 4 ho dmt on its own.

though i agree with you, its not an rc (or perhaps it is since there has been more research done on than other RC's.)
 
Here's a link to an interesting study on DOI. There are plenty of things to be read on pubmed, as mentioned earlier, but you may have to do a bit of searching

almost forgot.. some JWH's have been used in studies of the endocannabinoid system's regulation of tumor growth, JWH-133 i believe...
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of people are reluctant to research psychedelics, after the way LSD and other drugs have been made schedule in the past despite tons of great possibilities. Acid alone had thousands of real scientific studies that went on for over 10 years, nearly all of which stopped and became useless almost overnight with the passing of new laws. Supposedly there is some research going on at universities in other countries, but the worldwide stance on drugs at the moment is so negative most scientists don't want to get involved.

The majority of research is being done in an effort to eventually make money with the findings... and doing research on quasi-legal drugs that are being used/abused widespread by kids on the internet is pretty damn risky, which I think is what it all comes down to. Why take the chance of them becoming schedule soon, when there are tons of modifications that can be done to existing legal drugs and patented? Fucking with the chemical structure of a drug that lowers cholesterol, for example, and patenting it so they can charge a shitload of money is a much better business decision.
 
tribalDJ said:
I think a lot of people are reluctant to research psychedelics, after the way LSD and other drugs have been made schedule in the past despite tons of great possibilities. Acid alone had thousands of real scientific studies that went on for over 10 years, nearly all of which stopped and became useless almost overnight with the passing of new laws. Supposedly there is some research going on at universities in other countries, but the worldwide stance on drugs at the moment is so negative most scientists don't want to get involved.

The majority of research is being done in an effort to eventually make money with the findings... and doing research on quasi-legal drugs that are being used/abused widespread by kids on the internet is pretty damn risky, which I think is what it all comes down to. Why take the chance of them becoming schedule soon, when there are tons of modifications that can be done to existing legal drugs and patented? Fucking with the chemical structure of a drug that lowers cholesterol, for example, and patenting it so they can charge a shitload of money is a much better business decision.
Click to expand...

very good point. the only way to resolve this would be to heavily push the psychedelic for psychotherapy (which has already been tried). and even then, regulators would prefer the SSRI's and what not that we already have, because they lack the potential for "abuse".

additionally, if the gov actually acknowledged the medical benefit of psychedelic drugs, it would simultaneously acknowledge the medical benefit of the similarly structured alkaloids that occur naturally in plants/fungi. just like weed, they wouldn't be able to completely regulate use and it wouldn't be as lucrative.
 
yellowteeth said:
very good point. the only way to resolve this would be to heavily push the psychedelic for psychotherapy (which has already been tried). and even then, regulators would prefer the SSRI's and what not that we already have, because they lack the potential for "abuse".

additionally, if the gov actually acknowledged the medical benefit of psychedelic drugs, it would simultaneously acknowledge the medical benefit of the similarly structured alkaloids that occur naturally in plants/fungi. just like weed, they wouldn't be able to completely regulate use and it wouldn't be as lucrative.
Click to expand...

Ever wonder what the famous minds in the past thought about when they discovered great things, but were shunned by fellow scientists and the government/church? Eventually everyone catches on, and I think psychedelics are one of those things. So many possibilities, but society just isn't ready to accept them yet. My guess is children will laugh about this one day and wonder what the hell took so long =D
 
If anyone has any abstracts that they find interesting but can't read the full text, let me know. I should be able to find full-text for most articles due to grad school library account.
 
I think "RC" just means something that hasn't been time tested for negative effects on the human body and mind. Like LSD, Shrooms, and pot have been used for so long that they are not really linked to any bad disorders or negative bodily effects with the exception of HPPD or underlying mental disorders. But, many "RC's" are so new that the generation of people using them could start to experience negative side effects linked there use in earlier life. Possibly a new disease or maybe they could be a catalyst for some mental disorder.
 
I consider anything with a short history of human use, where the potential long-term effects are not yet known, to be an RC. That's a very broad category, however, and undoubtedly contains several subcategories like "hallucinogenic RC", "stimulant RC", "depressant RC", etc. 4fmp, for instance, is a stimulant, but because not much is known about it and there's no history of human use, it gets classed as an RC. With this "class" of drugs, it's absolutely vital to do your research (no pun intended) ahead of time, because not all RCs are created equal.

I envision that the ones with the highest potential for recreational use that the largest number of people find pleasurable will become more abundant over time, THEN there will be formal research done on their effects. Only when the propaganda machine spots a potential new "drug threat" will enough scientists, doctors, and chemists be prompted to study it further. I'm sure there's research being done on some of them now, but it takes a lot of different studies from a lot of different scientists to paint an accurate picture of the effects of a drug or anything else for that matter, and even then there are questions of bias and accuracy.

Until more is known about these drugs, WE are the researchers. The scientist and the guinea pig.
 
I plan on purchasing 2c-I for research purposes on SWLD- someone who likes drugs. :D

Can somebody give me the complete ultimate scoop on this drug?
 
The Winner!! said:
I plan on purchasing 2c-I for research purposes on SWLD- someone who likes drugs. :D

Can somebody give me the complete ultimate scoop on this drug?
Click to expand...

Dude there's plenty of info out there on 2C-I if you just do a simple search. Look it up on erowid, read its PIHKAL entry, read the big and dandy thread here. If you really need information spoon-fed to you like that, you probably shouldn't be messing around with unresearched phenethylamines in the first place.
 
Roger&Me said:
Dude there's plenty of info out there on 2C-I if you just do a simple search. Look it up on erowid, read its PIHKAL entry, read the big and dandy thread here. If you really need information spoon-fed to you like that, you probably shouldn't be messing around with unresearched phenethylamines in the first place.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It you don't know enough to know a specific question to ask, you don't know enough to use the drug.
 
I seem to remeber something about 2c-i and 2c-e in particular affecting nicotinic receptors (making one not want to smoke).
 
When I was still smoking, I can say I didn't experience anything to support that. I was chain smoking as much as on any psychedelic. I will say that the nausea made it less palatable, but I just didn't know what else to do.
 
yes, we are the researchers. anybody have a good amount of mixing "research chems" together. such as 2CB & 2CI. as well as recommended dosages??
 
muie said:
I seem to remeber something about 2c-i and 2c-e in particular affecting nicotinic receptors (making one not want to smoke).
Click to expand...

I certainly haven't experienced this, in fact I smoke quite a bit on both of these. However I do know 2 people that quit smoking cold turkey during 2c-e experiences. One of them eventually started smoking again, but not for over a month, the other did not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top