• 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

Possible Drugs of the Future

If I only knew what?

That your answer contains nothing to back your claim

I already know that (nothing new then!)


Tried, tested, and true is all I got to say to you.

And if that's an answer, it on a par with when kids say "not telling" (in case you haven't noticed, it's not so much an answer as a petulant retort; generally used by people who don't have an answer that'll stand up to public scrutiny).

Or is it the case that, like someone who dared to argue with you on the steroids forum, you'll rip me a new asshole ?

How about you just give the details to support your arguement - or is that too difficult (or impossible)?
 
Last edited:
LOL well I aint gonna argue what I have no intentions of proving as the only way to prove it is far to risky to be worth the risk of proving it.

So YOU WIN!!
 
So you're saying that you know someone who has made carfentanyl in the way you describe?


Now that not funny, it's fucking hilarious (as well as bullshit - nobody with any knowledge about the activity of carfentanyl, or other rediculously potent fentanyl analogues, reckoned it could be done safely. I know a couple of people who are postgrad organic chemists - who are gifted at such things; one said he wouldn't even think about carfentanyl, as he was intending to live a long life)


BTW, if you haven't noticed, it's not about who wins (looking at it that way is a bit sad) it's about getting to the truth

And just possibly the concept that if you're wrong, you learn from it, so as not to repeat the mistake. I've been wrong before, and after checking the facts, I've at least had the balls to admit I'm wrong instead of resorting to macho posturing, and saying things are "too risky to verify". That answer is the sort of thing anybody who can't verify something would come up with (or is too narcissistic to even consider the possibility that they could be wrong)
 
Last edited:
Getting back to the subject at hand, I'm not sure that I really see the point to developing new superdrugs in these categories. Sure, any drug company that develops a painkiller as powerful as any opioid but without the addiction potential or euphoria stands to make a fortune, but I really don't see that happening. The closest you could probably get is what is already being developed (and was mentioned at the beginning of the thread): putting naloxone or some other mu-antagonist in the time released opioid pills (such as oxycontin) that would be released only if the pill were crushed, that way those who require the medication can take it as directed with no problems, and those who crush the medication so as to absorb the entire dose of oxycodone at once will find it ineffective. Sure, people will still abuse IR oxycodone and hydrocodone pills, but at least they'll be making do with 5 or 10 mg pills instead of crushed continuous release pills containing 80mg. A THC derivative might alleviate the addiction concerns, since THC seems to be either physically non-addictive, or at least not as physically addictive as mu agonists. Unfortunately, for some reason it is more politically acceptable to research medicinal opioids, which are essentially heroin analogues, than it is to research medicinal marijuana analogues...proving once again that the biggest impediment to science is almost always stupid politicians.

As for developing new variants for recreational effects, I'm not sure that I see this becoming a serious business. Morphine and cocaine are both produced by plants which are cheaply grown in many places in the world. The cost of the eventual product means that it doesn't matter if these plants have to be grown in countries outside the US and smuggled, there is still an enormous profit margin involved. Synthesizing fentanyl analogues may certainly be profitable on a small scale, but on a large scale, it simply makes more economic sense to grow poppies than set up labs. Yes, I know, you need a lab to convert poppies into heroin, but this can be done in third world countries where one would assume that fentanyl synthesis could not be done, and a large scale lab in the US stands a good chance of being busted. The best comparison is to psychedelics: Yes, you have guys like Shulgin who devote their lives to researching novel chemical analogues and finding their varying effects, and people do experiment with his compounds, but I doubt that the sale of all Shulgin research chemicals even comes within a double-digit percentage point to the sale of psilocybin mushrooms.
 
Keep in mind, though, that I'm not personally or professionally familiar with either the prescription drug industry or the illegal drug industry, so I'm more than willing to accept that I could be wrong about part or all of the above post
 
Sphinx, if you're the mack-daddy carfentanyl chemist as you imply, you don't need to risk shit. We don't want pictures of you holding up drugs, we just want some form of proof. A synthesis route would seem to be best.
 
You could easily synth carfentanil with little worries as long as you are constantly administering naltrexone, the carfentanil can be cut with a liquid and sold in 100 dose vials for X$ a vial. I agree thinking you can cut that shit like its heroin is only feasible if you are in a real lab, not someones bathtub. On a side note, carfentanil is hard as fuck to synth anyway, but even the DEA forseas it as a drug of future abuse.
 
BilZ0r said:
Sphinx, if you're the mack-daddy carfentanyl chemist as you imply, you don't need to risk shit. We don't want pictures of you holding up drugs, we just want some form of proof. A synthesis route would seem to be best.
Click to expand...


I do not manufacutre any drugs I do not use drugs I have never seen a drug in my life I do not own drugs I do not sell drugs I am in NO WAY AT ALL UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND NEVER HAVE BEEN AFFILIATED WITH ANY ILLICIT DRUGS AT ANYTIME EVER OR AFFILIATED WITH ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH ANY ILLICIT DRUGS AT ANYTIME EVER. EVERYTHING I SAY AND EVER HAVE SAID IS PURELY ME ROLE-PLAYING WITH MY IMAGINATION COMON THE INTERNETS JUST A BIG ROLE-PLAYING GAME NOTHING SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUS ON HERE.

The synthesis route can be found on rho's website lol DUH, or just pickup a patent book.

Never claimed to develop a new synthesis, just McJohhny knows how to bypass all the steps of the synth except for the very last step which only takes 2 or so hours of actual work to accomplish, and its a very easy step. Voila, 100kgs+ of smack with 2 hours of work and 10,000 dollar investment + 2,000 worth of lab equip. NOT HARD AT ALL. Of course this can be done with ANY fentanyl analog the person chooses, assuming they know the procedural for the bypassing of all the steps but the final which McJohhny does but I dont know McJohhny so DONT EVEN TRY to ask me what the bypassing is.

And the cutting is dangerous but easily doable. Could be marketed in vials like twgburst said (safest possible way) or you can just dissolve the carf in solvent along with cutting agents, leave on mag stirrer with starburst mag for 48 hours to ensure its THROGOUGHLY stirred and then evap off the solvent and collect the residue voila you got cut carfy.
 
EVERYTHING I SAY AND EVER HAVE SAID IS PURELY ME ROLE-PLAYING WITH MY IMAGINATION COMON THE INTERNETS JUST A BIG ROLE-PLAYING GAME NOTHING SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUS ON HERE.


Then next time think about it BEFORE you post, because your "role playing games" don't belong here. Fact is that most of the topics here ARE serious and not some joke. Jokes don't belong here.
 
Last edited:
And the cutting is dangerous but easily doable

More role playing?

Because it has no basis in reality. How come, you've had nothing to do with these sort of drugs, yet your an expert? (unless you're role playing an ego driven, clueless gobshite)

And in case you haven't realized, the androgenic steroids that you're so fond of ARE drugs, in every sense of the word (they alter body chemistry, have side effects, are abused and are illegal). Or is everything you've ever written on this site role playing?

Considering that this is primarily a harm reduction site, how about trying from the point of view of SOMEBODY WITH SOME REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE rather than what you think real life is, according to the models in your head.

When it comes to topics that can effect people's lives this seriously

Role playing = ego wanking

Go role play something where giving out information/opinions will not rebound on people in the real world


PS. In light of the above, I really hope the content of this thread here is just you "role playing" someone sucessful
 
Last edited:
Constipation, the evil enemy

As a graduate level pharmacology student I'll tell you that there isn't too much wrong with the opiates we have in terms of pain relief. Yes, tolerance increases and that sucks but giving more isn't necessarily harmful to the body.

The biggest problem with opiates is the constipation they cause. See, the more opiates you give the more tolerance you get. This is tricky because you become tolerant to the analgesic effects before you become tolerant to the constipation effects. =major shitting problems.

Therefore, a major point of concern is to develop drugs that will keep you from getting all jammed up. And of course addiction is always around. However, many studies of opiates used in hospitals show that addiction is not in fact a problem when the drugs are administered for a health related problem.

Anyhow, that is how Immodium works. It is an opiate that cannot cross the BB (blood-brain) barrier. It won't get you high, but if you've got diarrhea (diarreah?) it will help.
 
fastandbulbous said:
PS. In light of the above, I really hope the content of this thread here is just you "role playing" someone sucessful
Click to expand...


Better beleive.

I just role play it up 24/7 buddy!! Your a smart cookie.
 
And I thought that I was contentious!

Heads up Fast as you are right on your posting about the fen analogs. As to the other poster who opined that it might have been different cooks in 91. There have only ever been 5 busts [6 if you include the Dupont moron Hovey] for cooking fen analogs. Marquardt's little baby [3-methyl] ended up in the Bronx and Conneticut by way of Boston but had been made in Kansas. Marquardt also [at about the same time] cooked some alpha-methyl and it made its way to Philadelphia. He was quite the busy man having been held accountable for at least 135 deaths that year.

Now for a bit of contention from Rachamim: Adulterating 3-methyl and alpha-methyl are not as difficult as you've been led to believe. The problem is getting the exact ratios EXACTLY correct as everyone knows standard Fentanyl is dosed in mics. The analogs are amazingly more potent so that [for some] a pure lethal dose can be as little as one grain of salt. It has been accomplished by adding the adulterants while the active substance is in liquid. Just as is often the case with U.S. heroin, they mostly relied on lactose and a bit of quinine. At times they would add it after the active substance was powdered, usually when they wanted to pass it off as brown heroin [carmelizing the lactose].

Uh Sphinx, I don't quite know how to say this but the part about picking up the scheme off of Rho [etc.] and then bypassing alot of the steps is absolute rubbish. First of all, if you are talking about Sigfried's scheme or Drone's scheme they are presented in the aforementioned databases with some necessary elements intentionally omitted. All the steps to the processes are necessary but the whole of the scheme IS STILL incomplete. Your estimate of 10000 for materials is over estimated by over 7000 dollars.

Cara is not a substance likely to gain currency [for abuse] due to its amazingly short duration. there are not a hell of alot of junkies who want to envision fixing every 10 minutes.
 
Does anybody know what that shulgin guy is up to ?
He's still into making new psychedelics right?
 
"Shulgin works for the DEA..."
I don't really care who he's working for I want to know what he's up to , he's not writing a third book?
 
I once read a post by an Elf on the Isle of Balar UBB that discussed the potential psychoactive and/or stimulating properties of chromanamines. Though I'm no chemist, a cursory search of the literature and resources out there has found very little info this group. Nevertheless, there are a few studies out there. A book on chromans at the local university library also has a few blurbs on the pharmocological properties of chromanamines. From what I can see, these seem to be dopamine receptor agonists.

Two abstracts I found:

Substance: N,N dipropyl-8-hydroxy-3-chromanamine, DP-8OH-3CA
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3421784&dopt=Abstract

Substance: dipropyl-6-hydroxy-3-chromanamine, DP-6OH-3CA
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2907015&dopt=Abstract

Substance: 6,7-Dihydroxy-3-chromanamine
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6090664&dopt=Abstract

This is an old (1972) study of 3-chromanamine, which seems to be a particularly promising molecule. Unfortunately, the abstract itself isn't available online, but the publication info is, at:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=5044309&dopt=Abstract
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top