• 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 does 4-ACO-DMT come from?

T

thatdreamer123

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
127
I recently acquired some 4-ACO-DMT, and me and some buddies have tried it. I really like it, it's very similar to shrooms, but different in some very hard to describe ways.

But anyways, me and a friend were discussing how 4-ACO-DMT is a prodrug of psilocin, and so is psilocybin. He says that it is is much less natural simply because it's a powder and isn't mushrooms. But, I remember reading in some places around the internetz that it is likely that 4-ACO-DMT is made from mushrooms to begin with and it is unlikely that it is (and would be very difficult to do so) built from the ground up in a laboratory. And the I just recently learned that NBOME's are synthesized from their 2C-X counterparts.

Noe I'm not asking how to synthesize this or anything of that nature, I'm sure curious about where it comes from in the first place. I mean, there are plenty of different opiates/opioids, but they all came from a poppy to begin with.

Any info on this?
 
Most 4-aco-dmt is made in labs in china. You do know it's possible to synth pure psilocin in a lab right? As to whether they use shrooms as a starting point idk but I dont think it's necessary. And your friend needs to realize that purely synthetic psilocin is the same as that found in mushrooms. Mushrooms may feel different then pure psilocin bur that's due to the fact that there are other alkaloids in mushrooms and even though psilocybin converts to psilocin some say it acts like a time realease which changes the effects but I can't comment as I've never tried pure psilocin.

As for 4-aco-dmt's effects, I find them more colorful/visual, friendly, less euphoric, shoter lasting, and more sedating than shrooms not to mention the lighter bodyload. I would take 4-aco over shrooms anyday. 4-aco is all that I want from mushrooms and more. I prefer working with powders over plant material but that's just me.
 
Last edited:
Plenty of opioids are totally synthetic too, fentanyls and pethidines and tramadol. Psilocin and 4-AcO-DMT are both easily made by a skilled chemist, or indeed by not-so-skilled Chinese ones.
 
If I had to guess, I would say 4-AcO-DMT comes from 4-hydroxyindole, certainly not from mushrooms though.
 
I dislike people labeling drugs as "more natural" than others as if they carry more inherent risk.
Sure 4-aco-dmt is less natural than naturally produced psilocin, but it's just as unnatural as synthetically produced psilocin which would have the same safety profile as if it were naturally extracted
 
Dresden said:
If I had to guess, I would say 4-AcO-DMT comes from 4-hydroxyindole, certainly not from mushrooms though.
Click to expand...

Theoretically speaking one could isolate psilocybin from mushrooms, dephosphrylate that into psilocin, and then acetylate into 4-AcO-DMT. You'd probably want p. cyanescens to do that though, or else you'd have a really hard time getting enough mushrooms to have any worthwhile yield.
 
On the nature vs synthetic thing, it has been theorized by Shulgin that one could add a different base tryptamine to the mushrooms diet, and the shrooms would 4-hydroxylize that instead. So say someone grows shrooms, adding MiPT to the substrate. The shrooms could produce 4-OH-MiPT, instead of 4-OH-DMT (psilocin). Now, all 4-OH-MiPT on the market is most likely fully synthetic, while that produced from shrooms in such a way would be semi-synthetic (or semi-natural, depending on how you look at it).

Side Note: Why does everyone insist on calling them 4-HO-DMT, or 4-HO-MiPT? I know it is the same thing, but in chemistry, Hydroxyl is -OH.
 
Yes, I know it is the same, but it deviates from standard. Did Shulgin really do this? Did he start the trend, or merely follow others? I really feel dumb for giving a shit, usually I say fucks off with semantics, but IDK, it just seems like anyone qualified to fuck with chemicals should know this. I mean, we don't say NaHO do we? If I was to post that, in an unrelated thread, I bet it would take mere minutes for someone to point out, "It's NaOH, dumbass". Whatever, off topic, and I shouldn't care anyway. Hell, I have made it my signature to go around saying things like "Imma" and "prolly", lol. Just curious.

It just seems, some of the drug geeks are so anal about tiny lil insignificant things, but somehow this flies under the radar.
 
Where does 4-ACO-DMT come from?

In a land far away magic elves gather in the wee hours of the morning just before twilight. Thats when the magic mushrooms appear that fill the air with magic dust some call 4-aco-dmt. With special nets the elves gather the dust and send it off to customers all over the globe.
 
Is there a difference in quality? I dont really mean potency.. i noticed i dont get any more euphoria. Also noticed thats not because its white powder or degraded brown goey stuff. Can it be that the batches are a bit different in effects?
 
Psychedelics can really play with your mind, but either a chemical is 4-AcO-DMT or it isn't, and different "batches" would not be expected to give different effects, unless there was something else in there. Every trip is different though, and on two different occasions the same dose of the same drug can be a totally other experience.
 
No. Synthetic drugs are exact / discreet chemically. If we are talking about 4-AcO-DMT we mean the pure material made up of molecules which are all indistinguishable and exactly alike in their nature, properties and pharmacological profile. There are no real differences of variance possible (besides things like electronic charge or changes in acidity when in solution all of which are irrelevant here), any difference or change would mean another chemical compound. It doesn't seem at all likely that there are 4-AcO-DMT batches that are laced i.e. cut with other psychoactive drugs. However 4-AcO-DMT may contain trace amounts of 4-HO-DMT and the brown to black degraded form is possibly oxidated and/or hydrated and maybe partially hydrolysed, but like you suggest the effects should remain the same.

If you don't get the euphoria you used to it is possible that you are experiencing a form of (psychological) tolerance. There are a few possible explanations that mostly have to do with desensitization: maybe 5-HT1A receptors in the brain is involved or the cause of euphoria from psychedelics may be related to for example feelings of novelty which are linked to certain regions in the brain. Even if that effect on the brain is not directly the cause of your tolerance effects each time you use a drug the experience becomes less novel and special, and this happens most of all if not a lot of time is left in between.
Waiting for a longer time until you use it again over time makes it gradually harder to remember or imagine what it was like. Your mind and your brain once again become less used to it and are meanwhile influenced, affected and changed by other experiences in your life.

There are also a lot of external factors that can influence effects such as expectations which also naturally change over time and even from trip to trip. Set and setting sum up your personal context.
 
infectious said:
Yes, I know it is the same, but it deviates from standard. Did Shulgin really do this? Did he start the trend, or merely follow others? I really feel dumb for giving a shit, usually I say fucks off with semantics, but IDK, it just seems like anyone qualified to fuck with chemicals should know this. I mean, we don't say NaHO do we? If I was to post that, in an unrelated thread, I bet it would take mere minutes for someone to point out, "It's NaOH, dumbass". Whatever, off topic, and I shouldn't care anyway. Hell, I have made it my signature to go around saying things like "Imma" and "prolly", lol. Just curious.

It just seems, some of the drug geeks are so anal about tiny lil insignificant things, but somehow this flies under the radar.
Click to expand...
I always wondered this too, as well OH would be more correct in terms of molecular structure as hydrogen is always a terminal atom so something like ammonium hydroxide, NH4OH, the hydrogen is the terminal atom on the oxygen which is attached to the ammonium ion just as the molecular formula is written
I always said 4-HO-whatever though because it's what I always saw used and got used to it I guess
 
NaOH makes more sense because the actual sequence of bonded atoms is Na+ to O2- to H+. This is much more common in anorganic chemistry where hydroxide is mostly written as OH-. Part of that may have something to do with it being a negatively charged ion (anion) which are typically put second while the positive cation is put first. NH4OH is an example of that.
But 4-HO-DMT makes sense because again the it is the O that is attached to the rest of the tryptamine molecule, and esterification to the acetyl creating 4-AcO- is then still consistent. I never came across OAc in formula names but it is regularly seen in structural formulae which are visual and the order or sequence is spatially arbitrary since we can rotate everything without that changing anything. In organic chemistry using a rather literal order like this is much more realistic, and attached groups are usually specified before the groups they are attached to which is kind of the opposite habit when we happen to look at OH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top