Ime 5-mapb had potential to bring many benefits of MDMA and I found it very good as it is a bit more trippy and more importantly it felt a lot more gentle on the body and brain (I know that feeling doesn’t really mean it’s so). If I had tried 5-mapb first and than MDMA I know my thoughts about it would be different as pure novelty of experience brings back some magic or better said shows a new one. Two times I took 5-mapb aren’t nearly as cut into my memory as first and most glowing MDMA experiences but if I had a choice right now I would chose 5-mapb without giving it much thinking. Two reasons are for that, first being that MDMA for me has no novelty any-more (on rare occasions I did took with someone it last many years every experience was so “by the book” and almost scripted and moulded by predictable and consistent MDMA effects) and second being MDMA doesn’t produce after-glow (and that stopped rather soon, maybe after 5 – 10 experiences with it) but comedown followed by feeling of melancholy and being washed-out.
For someone without prior experiences with either substance imho more suitable experience (I deliberately don’t say more suitable substance as I don’t really know how they compare in terms of safety either during acute effects or in terms of danger in case of occasional use; if I knew which was really safer I would recommend that as I don’t think of MDMA as really that safe, especially used in manner many people do) would depend if person is looking to have fun, bond with someone, enjoy some social occasion better or if person is taking it for therapeutic effects that help specifically good with thing like PTSD. In second case I think MDMA pushes more buttons that might make it more likely to heal trauma and help deal with bad memories. But that kind of use imho can be considered success only when person is healed by relatively small number of experiences and/or benefits from MDMA even when used very sparingly over very long time. If someone retains positive effects and benefits from MDMA only for relatively short time and only when used repeatedly relatively often in that case I’m more than confident to say many other substances would be much better choice long term. Maybe in that case 5-mapb is potentially better choice but instead with my current knowledge about MDMA and substances people take as replacement or alternative I think αMT is among best choices as it was taken by many people as quite effective antidepressant in small doses (I think pharmaceutical pills were 5mg taken once per day) and even very big doses (taken in caution and consideration of it’s MAOI effects) causes very little of bad effects MDMA brings and almost none bad after-effects. While taken in low or moderate dose it brings a some of same positive effects that MDMA and 2c-b bring in certain good ratio leaning toward more emphatogenic effects of MDMA on one side and bringing some trippines that 2c-b brings but without need to really venture into psychedelics, candy psychedelic but still avenue that 2c-b requires to be really effective. If person can handle psychedelics fine in that case I think benefits to risks ratio of both αMT and 2c-b surpass those of MDMA. I know most of what I wrote isn’t connected to this study but I have need to mention αMT and 2c-b that I think that both deserve a spotlight as beneficial chemicals at least as or even more than MDMA does and more than 5-mapb could get. Why territory that quite well covers space in, to say so, range between MDMA and LSD is hardly touched any-more in mainstream research is surprising to me as I think sweet spot for many people in helping to deal and heal a lot, might be there. And for those whose sweet spot might really be either with some, what’s considered by many pure emphatogen or pure psychedelic still could benefit either starting somewhere in between, additionally exploring their mind so or helping someone to gradually switch from something like MDMA to something like LSD as for many intense psychedelic experience has a lot more and a lot wider potential than emphatogens. I understand big problem with psychedelics is they bring more responsibility, more variations and in some cases more risks but also can provide a lot more new benefits and almost always cover what emphatogens do, often even that in a more intense manner. LSD maybe isn’t labelled as emphatogen but in right conditions and dose it often is both that and both more euphoric even such effects aren’t present in many experiences as main effects those too can be are part of a much more powerful experience than MDMA could ever give.
