• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

New (or relatively new) RCs - Feels somewhere inbetween

Status
Not open for further replies.
and that final comment "and if we ban them, they could just create more dangerous one's so we're damned if we do and damned if we don't"

meaning "the current system is SHIT"

the only way out is legalising and controlling, anyone who prefers this knock off shit to the real (illegal) deal is too fucked to bother with anyway.
 
How much 6apb should I dose people on, specifically people who've not got much if any drug experience? I myself have done about 200mg before after being up all night and that was good fun, but wondering what I should give other people.
 
I don't think one can claim a generic sweet spot. I you have a look in the B& thread there are people saying they regularly take 80mg and that's an ideal strength, whereas others need 200mg. Personally I would suggest starting with maybe 130mg.
 
Top Cat said:
How much 6apb should I dose people on, specifically people who've not got much if any drug experience? I myself have done about 200mg before after being up all night and that was good fun, but wondering what I should give other people.
Click to expand...

100/150mg
 
swedger77 said:
This post has since been discredited as being written by a serial TROLL/attention whore.
Click to expand...

oh shit, so it has. lol. but still, i'm finished taking RC's and being a guinea pig for brand new drugs with no history of human use or any information on them really. plus the high from RC's is just not worth it vs. the real deal.
 
FlippingTop said:
There is no difference, they are just classes of chemicals, many of the newer RCs will dump out way more serotonin / dopamine than 'Real drugs'.

Real drugs don't exist.
Click to expand...

Shambles said:
Indeed. All drugs are RCs until they ain't.
Click to expand...

yea but that's the point, by the real deal i mean drugs that have been used, studied, abused, treated, for decades, weed, coke, speed, heroin, lsd, mushrooms, mdma. i'm not saying they are safe, i'm saying most of the risks are known because they have been used by millions of people for decades, vs. a few drug nerds for a few months.
 
I partially agree with that... but it's also true that many RCs are just legal analogues of illegal drugs so the risks can generally be reasonably well estimated cos they're so closely related. But ultimately it is true that there isn't generally an extensive history of use behind them. Depends what you class as RCs really.
 
Shambles said:
I partially agree with that... but it's also true that many RCs are just legal analogues of illegal drugs so the risks can generally be reasonably well estimated cos they're so closely related. But ultimately it is true that there isn't generally an extensive history of use behind them. Depends what you class as RCs really.
Click to expand...

But.. that's not really true. Look at the classic, MPTP - the damage was caused because of an impurity in the synthesis, not something that could be predicted from the structure of the drug itself. Also some of the recent PCP analogues, notably 4-MeO-PCP, could well have been contaminated by impurities of PCC, which is toxic.

Although structure follows function to a degree, it is certainly not absolute. To take another recent example, it appears that 5/6-APB have very high affinity for the 5HT2B receptor - higher than MDMA and fenfluramine. 5HT2B is the receptor implicated in heart valve damage. Although we have no idea what these high affinities might mean in recreational doses, it should still be a cause for concern.

It always strikes me as incredible serendipity that the first synthetic psychedelic, LSD, is so utterly benign physically. Yet with every step down the road, the substances seem to get worse and worse..
 
Impurities are hardly an exclusive problem for RCs though are they? I do tend to agree they're probably more likely to be a problem with RCs in a sense - if only cos labs have had less practice at making 'em - but any synthetic drug can be fucked up to a dangerous degree through accident, incompetence or even malice (rather unlikely that latter though). I'm not saying there are no additional risks with RCs, but I don't think they're outrageous for the most part. Obviously it is in the nature of new substances that there's always potential for summat to show up down the line unexpectedly but - so far at least - the number of deaths or serious harms that can legitimately be put down to RC use is miniscule and most of those are morons taking insane doses or combos. We'll have to wait and see, I guess... but it does rather seem that every drug starts off with horror stories and dire warnings and they very rarely come true even slightly.
 
You've only got to look at krokodil, the swedish manganism cases and anthrax in heroin to see that this is a problem which is certainly not exclusive to novel psychoactives. If you have the pure substance then shambles is quite right, you can extrapolate existing data quite nicely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top