Subtituted Methiopropamine

[Sir Ron Pib]

Are any substitutions to Methiopropamine known or worth looking into? Since we have psychedelic amphetamines I do wonder if there is any potential for this - there hasn't been much about it on BL perhaps because things like 4-FA gain more excitement but it is a very reasonable stimulant and has a lot going for it. It isn't the most euphoric stimulant but it would be wrong to think it isn't euphoric; it is, just not strongly so; you feel very good and can get a lot done. It is realitively short; the main effects are 3-4hrs; there is a long tail off like many stims but not too painful; the main thing is to find the smallest dose that is useful since you can't nessasarily get way more euphoria. 45mg works well for me. Maybe less would be fine by a fraction. Whilst amphetamine is nicer and I get more done (sometimes over do it) - this has the advantage of being over quickly and I don't get the grumpy crash a few days later.
So I actually rate it as a base so any chance of psychedelics from this - the only think I can think of is not having a benzene ring adding methyoxy groups etc round it won't slot into receptor site like a-PEAs. Any thoughts from those better versed in chemistry/pharmacology?

 

[Nexus_Tripper]

Analogs of methiopropamine would almost certainly be worthless. There's a slim chance that thiopropamine analogs might be active, but I doubt it.

Is this similar to what you are be talking about?

 

[sekio]

Analogs of methiopropamine would almost certainly be worthless. There's a slim chance that thiopropamine analogs might be active, but I doubt it.

What's your reasoning behind this? I would think that simply substituted analogues of both would be active, if maybe a little rough around the edges.

I think part of why none of these have been explored is the relative ease of making/buying substituted phenyl compounds/benzaldehydes instead of substituted thiophenes/thiofurfurals(?).

 

[pr0d1gy]

What's your reasoning behind this? I would think that simply substituted analogues of both would be active, if maybe a little rough around the edges.

I think part of why none of these have been explored is the relative ease of making/buying substituted phenyl compounds/benzaldehydes instead of substituted thiophenes/thiofurfurals(?).

I agree on the last part 100%. We will never see highly functionalized thiophene derivatives widely available as the price will be prohibitive. Functionalizing thiophene in the way seen in many phenethylamines is not practical at all. Not to mention I don't think that it is known which subsituted thiophenes would be desirable. I wouldn't imagine that one could just pull over what substituted phenethylamines work well and apply that to thiophenes right? I mean the electronics are just too different, not to mention the sterics.

In particular I don't see thiophenes with multiple donor substituents working well. From a chemical perspective, they will be difficult to synthesize and prone to side reactions.

 

[Nexus_Tripper]

What's your reasoning behind this? I would think that simply substituted analogues of both would be active, if maybe a little rough around the edges.

I think part of why none of these have been explored is the relative ease of making/buying substituted phenyl compounds/benzaldehydes instead of substituted thiophenes/thiofurfurals(?).

I say this because the N-methyl counterparts of psychedelic amphetamines are inactive

 

[sekio]

Not all substituted amphetamines are psychedelics, though. There's stuff like fluoroamphetamines and MDMA which are arguably still stimulants.