• BASIC DRUG
    DISCUSSION
    Welcome to Bluelight!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Benzo Chart Opioids Chart
    Drug Terms Need Help??
    Drugs 101 Brain & Addiction
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums
  • BDD Moderators: Keif’ Richards | negrogesic

Is it possible to have a discussion regarding 4-FMA (4-FlouroMethamphetamine)?

S

stimtowin

Greenlighter
Joined
Oct 31, 2016
Messages
4
Past Information​

It seems that most of the posts or mentions of 4-FMA are from the 2007-2012 period, when a lot of the "Fluoro" research chemicals were still new to the scene, and there wasn't a structural hierarchy outlined. Today, there are endless reports and posts to be found regarding the other "Fluoro"-chemicals such as: 2-FMA, 2-FA, and 4-FA. In most forums, 4-FA is regarded very highly and is still a very popular choice.... but it seems like discussion on 4-FMA has all but died out.

There seem to be several old posts that mention 4-FMA having a period of popularity in Sweden at some point, but as an English speaker it is rather hard to see if there is more information available somewhere. There are also some people who report having amazing experiences using the chemical, and it is sometimes described as "stronger" or more accurately "rougher" than 4-FA in it's effects (the comparisons to 4-FA seem to stem from the similar names, shared classification as research chemicals, and shared stimulant/empathogen effects). However, other users report it is as being "worthless" or saying that it "feels very neurotoxic" (although, most people seem to feel that one cannot feel neurotoxicity.... perhaps it is figurative and not literal). There are also a few people who ask how 4-FMA compares to Meth (Methamphetamine), due to the similar chemical structure..... but, generally these discussions go unanswered or aren't really answered in detail.
Current situation​

Currently, little is really known about the chemical, other than the fact that it is primarily referred to under the spectrum of "research chemicals". If one attempts to search for information, it begins it get quite tricky. The primary problem is that most people confuse 4-FA (4-Fluoroamphetamine) with 4-FMA (4-Fluoromethamphetamine). In addition to this issue, there seems to be a lack of quality trip reports or detailed discussions regarding dosages, ROA, effects, and duration.


The conflicting reports that can be found online make it very difficult to understand what the effects of 4-FMA can be categorized as. One begins to wonder if perhaps 4-FMA is inconsistent depending on the ROA or the biochemistry of the researcher (similar to other chemicals like 3-FPM), or if perhaps there are other explanations (people confusing 4-FA / 4-FMA or even other chemicals, or perhaps different sources sending out wildly different versions).



Links that may be useful:



 
Last edited:
It is, but frankly I cannot keep up with the various acronyms of the stims I have been trying here and there over the past 4 years or so - especially many of the 'fluoro's' which have such similar names, now that they have all been withdrawn from the domestic open market and are no longer readily available though.

Won't have that problem with 4- FMA after this though. Good info ST - it's just a shame I cannot remember when (and if) i gave this one a whirl.... 8)
 
steewith2ees said:
It is, but frankly I cannot keep up with the various acronyms of the stims I have been trying here and there over the past 4 years or so - especially many of the 'fluoro's' which have such similar names, now that they have all been withdrawn from the domestic open market and are no longer readily available though.

Won't have that problem with 4- FMA after this though. Good info ST - it's just a shame I cannot remember when (and if) i gave this one a whirl.... 8)
Click to expand...

I definitely understand getting the names confused, especially when 4-FA, 4fa, 4fmp, 4-FMP, and etc. all refer to the 4-Fluoroamphetamine, and then 4-FMA refers to 4-Fluoromethamphetamine.... it's so easy to get everything confused with the names. We've all done it :D

The interesting thing is that while 2-FMA and 2-FA are pretty much "dried up" currently, and 4-FA is becoming the same...... 4-FMA is still readily available on the clearnet, at least for now. I'd say it's definitely due to this lack of popularity, or even knowledge of it's existence, that is sustaining that for now though. Hmm..... I wonder if the day comes where 4-FA becomes "temporarily extinct", if perhaps the community would then turn it's head towards 4-FMA, and maybe then this discussion would come out in full force? I guess we can't know ahead of time, but just something to think about, possibly
 
I'm in the UK dude - so while these drugs are still available from clearnet sources we are no longer (from May 2016) permitted to import or distribute them, including drugs that haven't even been invented yet!
 
steewith2ees said:
I'm in the UK dude - so while these drugs are still available from clearnet sources we are no longer (from May 2016) permitted to import or distribute them, including drugs that haven't even been invented yet!
Click to expand...


Ahhh, yeah that isn't fun. You can either say it's a brilliant policy and well-designed, or that it's completely ridiculous and too broad. Well, speaking of this, another relevant thing to note is how..... 4-FMA is probably more troublesome than the other Research Chemicals, legally. It most definitely will give false positives for "Methamphetamine" or "Meth" or "Crystal Meth" on most tests, and I'm sure that explaining the "4-Fluoro" makes the chemical different to a police officer would be........ quite a difficult thing to do.
 
stimmtowin said:
However, other users report it is as being "worthless" or saying that it "feels very neurotoxic" (although, most people seem to feel that one cannot feel neurotoxicity.... perhaps it is figurative and not literal).
Click to expand...

IME people seem to consider stims neurotoxic when they have a stronger empathogenic effect, almost as if a straight up stimulant is somehow cleaner and therefore easier on the body.

Obviously this is generally unfounded.
 
Tranced said:
IME people seem to consider stims neurotoxic when they have a stronger empathogenic effect, almost as if a straight up stimulant is somehow cleaner and therefore easier on the body.

Obviously this is generally unfounded.
Click to expand...


Interesting note! I think this is true.... people always do say that 4-FA for example is more neurotoxic than any of the other stims. I must come clean a bit here and say that I HAVE tried 4-FMA myself, and it is very empathogenic, even compared to 4-FA. To go back to this point though, I have tried 4-FMA before, but I don't really know enough or have enough experience to say what the dosage ranges are, what the effects should be classified as, and I have no idea at all about the chemistry and pharmacology behind it. I really wonder how often it is "safe" to take, or what the concerns would be. I have extensively searched the web trying to read any bit of information I could find about 4-FMA, trying to compile all the feedback, reports, theories, and etc.... but so far, my search has only really turned up what you find in the main post. It seems like there is no clear consensus that can be made, and definitely no clear answer for dosage, duration, safety, side effects, or really much at all. It may have seemed deceptive to not mention this previously, but I tried to eliminate any possible bias when writing originally, and the discussion about 4-FMA (if anyone else chimes in with their experiences or knowledge later on) can only help the community as a whole. We all know almost nothing about 4-FMA currently, but it would benefit everyone if we can can learn more about it. It could be a weaker Fluoro chemical and potentially be more neurotoxic like some think, but no claims or theories can be validated at all with so little data available.
 
stimtowin said:
Ahhh, yeah that isn't fun. You can either say it's a brilliant policy and well-designed, or that it's completely ridiculous and too broad.
Click to expand...

It's a brilliant policy that's far too broad, brilliant in the fact that it outright bans any harmful drug that current politicians do not openly discuss their use of, while hypocritically still permitting the one's that they, personally as a professional body, love - tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, and thanks to the more 'progressive' lifestyle of Crispin Blunt... erm, 'Poppers' i.e. the Butyl Nitrates or whatever it is they use in contemporary versions of this product instead of Amyl, far too broad in the fact that it bans chemicals that do not even feature in scientific theory yet in case they produce fictional effects that may be considered positive, regardlesss of the long or the short of it.

Sorry to go OT about the 4-FMA but I'm still really sore about all of this...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top