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

Where's the 25B-NBOMe?

T

ToxicFerret

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 14, 2004
Messages
1,484
Location
Chitown
Before everyone jumps on me I'll explicitly state that this is NOT a source request. Further, I and everyone replying will be highly unspecific regarding vendors. Meaning don't even give their name.

Now with that out of the way I'll get down to business. I'm curious if anyone has an idea about why it's so easy to find 25c- and 25d-NBOMe but as far as I know impossible to find 25b-NBOMe? Is it because it is counted as an analog of 2c-b in the united states? Regardless there are certainly vendors that will ship RCs to places even when they are banned so I doubt that would be much of an obstacle. What interests me more is the complete lack of ANY online vendors for this RC.

Like I said the other NBOMe series RCs have shown up including both of the other halogens (25c- and 25b-) and so the glaring omission of the brominated counterpart is weird to me. Which is a shame because the few reports on 25b-NBOMe seem to indicate empathogenic characteristics much like 2c-b. From what I have read I'd quite like to take some ASAP buy with this current absence on the grey market it appears that won't happen anytime soon.

Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I've actually started to see the that it's on it's way. ( To spread some hope )

But I don't get why this wasn't one of the first ones the hit the market.
Maybe to avoid publicity,It is after all the most well known and to much publicity might ban them all a lot faster? ( wild guess )
Harder to make then the others?
 
I would suppose that most NBOMEs are synthesized from theirs parent 2Cs compound, so the route is something like 2C-X -> 25X-NBOMe. Thus, 25B-NBOMe requires 2C-B as precursor, which is illegal. Another (legal) route is probably something like 2C-H -> 25H-NBOMe -> 25B-NBOMe.

I am no chemist, though. ADD folks should known the answers.
 
I suppose this is because the easiest route to prepare it requires 2C-B as a precursor. Which is itself illegal literally everywhere.
 
allium said:
I would suppose that most NBOMEs are synthesized from theirs parent 2Cs compound, so the route is something like 2C-X -> 25X-NBOMe. Thus, 25B-NBOMe requires 2C-B as precursor, which is illegal. Another (legal) route is probably something like 2C-H -> 25H-NBOMe -> 25B-NBOMe.
Click to expand...

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Though I wouldn't expect the labs in China to care much that is indeed an impediment to any domestic production here in the US.

And Kalle I'm hoping you're right but more than once now someone has claimed that this is working it's way into the production pipeline but I'm still waiting heh..
 
Last edited:
allium said:
I would suppose that most NBOMEs are synthesized from theirs parent 2Cs compound, so the route is something like 2C-X -> 25X-NBOMe. Thus, 25B-NBOMe requires 2C-B as precursor, which is illegal. Another (legal) route is probably something like 2C-H -> 25H-NBOMe -> 25B-NBOMe.

I am no chemist, though. ADD folks should known the answers.
Click to expand...

Isn't synthesis discussion against BL rules? Especially when we're talking about precursors like this...
 
Sorry, I disagree, I don't usually point out "rule breaking" but this one is pretty clear and it seems like this whole topic is murky territory

but I see your point, at least :)
 
Erny said:
That won't work as you expect it, both benzene rings will be brominated.
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever experimented with adding things on the second ring?

And so I guess the question then becomes whether or not this will EVER make it to market in any substantial way (ie not a chemist making a small batch up for his/her close friends)
 
ToxicFerret said:
Has anyone ever experimented with adding things on the second ring?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "adding things" there? Structures with additional substituents on the second ring? A number of them was made, substituted at 3rd, 4th or 5th position with halogens, methyls or methoxyls. None was found to be active as far as I remember.

And so I guess the question then becomes whether or not this will EVER make it to market in any substantial way (ie not a chemist making a small batch up for his/her close friends)
Click to expand...
There are possible ways to avoid the usage of 2C-X as precursors, but these may be costly in comparison with the classic "2C-X -> 2C-X-NBOMe" route. The question is whether or not rc vendors will find it worth doing. The price of such 25B made via alternative routes may thus be higher than usual, and the customers won't like that.
 
Erny said:
What do you mean by "adding things" there? Structures with additional substituents on the second ring? A number of them was made, substituted at 3rd, 4th or 5th position with halogens, methyls or methoxyls. None was found to be active as far as I remember.
Click to expand...

Could you post a reference please?
 
Sorry, I can't. :) That is not accessible for guests. And it is in Russian. And I won't take anything that is in the restricted area without the author's permission.
 
Indole said:
Could you post a reference please?
Click to expand...

Ralf Heim looked at a range of substituents on the benzyl in his dissertation, and only the 2-OH and 2-OMe show good binding to 5HT-2a receptors. It is available here, but it is in German.
 
^^ yeah seriously. Erny, I'm not asking you to do anything unethical like steal a research paper, im just asking you to cite your source.
 
That cannot be done folks. :) Leave people who do not wish their investigations to receive public attention alone. You will either have to believe me that some of them were made and tested in man, or leave - thinking that maybe I'm telling you bullshit here.
 
Post solid knowledge or don't bother at all

Indole said:
yeah seriously. Erny, I'm not asking you to do anything unethical like steal a research paper, im just asking you to cite your source.
Click to expand...

Erny said:
That cannot be done folks. :) Leave people who do not wish their investigations to receive public attention alone. You will either have to believe me that some of them were made and tested in man, or leave - thinking that maybe I'm telling you bullshit here.
Click to expand...


Sorry Erny, but that is not how we approach harm reduction, psychonautical explorations and new research tools. You should know this.

Your approach of "trust me or F.U.", or to use a more kindly paraphrase, "my way or the highway", is a wholly inappropriate approach to communicating information about new and untested RCs. Please don't even bother to post such unsubstantiated dribble.

Despite all the respect I owe Erny for his bleeding edge vanguard forays into the world of NBOMes, I think that his most recent response is trite and unacceptable.

Knowledge is dangerous, BUT partial knowledge is inestimably more dangerous; <= that's me paraphrasing the great Alexander Pope:

http://anonym.to/?http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing.html

Alexander Pope said:
A little learning is a dangerous thing

drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring [meaning the prototypical fountain of knowledge]

there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

and drinking largely sobers us again
Click to expand...


Please don't feebly flick off crumbs of knowledge from your motherly apron to our upturned, eager faces.

Man up and come correct with some real and helpful knowledge to ensure harm reduction and psyochonautical advancement or otherwise you can choose simply fade away and cloister your secret group's findings in a place that humanity will never benefit from. Your choice. But please don't taunt us with hand-me-down knowledge.

We all understand the need for privacy, so either:

1) elect to utilize a Trickle Down Approach, where you tell a select few and then subsequently general guidelines make it on down the ladder to we peons

2) cite a rarefied source that some BL intelligentsia will hunt down and parlay/port information forward to the masses

3) just summarize the findings in a manner that exculpates/anonomizes your source (who I'm sure we all agree should be left outside this discussion).

With the wealth of electronic and personal tools at our disposal that can anonomize information, you really have no reason not share your knowledge, except to exclude people who genuinely need your able insight.

Hoping you'll share, R
 
Last edited:
Erny said:
That cannot be done folks. :) Leave people who do not wish their investigations to receive public attention alone. You will either have to believe me that some of them were made and tested in man, or leave - thinking that maybe I'm telling you bullshit here.
Click to expand...

If you can't provide a source to back up your claims, then of course what you're saying is bullshit. I understand that you might be trying to preserve the anonymity of the researcher(s), but if you can't cite your source don't tantalize us, it's really not appropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top