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

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

EADD: New (and less new) RCs - steric hindrance and vestigial rituals

Status
Not open for further replies.
GW 501516 is a recent example. This was being sold for a brief period about a year ago before it got pulled. I managed to get hold of a pack from overseas but stopped ordering after a net search brought up a load of stuff about it having a potential link with cancer.
 
We can be pretty sure etizolam hasn't failed it's toxicity tests, it is a registered medicine in large parts of the world.

Diclazepam (2'-chloro-diazepam) caused some worry before it was confirmed to be 2'-chloro-diazepam - 4'-chloro-diazepam is toxic.

idk about the other two
 
Swarm said:
GW 501516 is a recent example. This was being sold for a brief period about a year ago before it got pulled. I managed to get hold of a pack from overseas but stopped ordering after a net search brought up a load of stuff about it having a potential link with cancer.
Click to expand...
Even worse, you can still buy it from some rc vendors.... they could at least put up a warning.
 
Sometimes the variants are dropped simply due to economics (costs of scale-up and production) and/or poorer pharma-properties than relations (e.g., lower bioavailabilty = more compound per dose = more $$$).

As noted, if the compounds are very similar no point chucking another compound on the market for the lulz.
 
it was one of the haloganted FAs, i havent a clue what that means, but you dont have to have a degree in neuro chemistry and understand what it means, you just have to know the names of which ones to avoid. I think it's reasuring that dangerous compounds do get identified, even if some vendors continue selling them once this is known, most of them took it off the market due to 'public pressure' but one or 2 vendors kept selling it, some others may just have re-labelled it as something else, we really cant be sure.

It's the responsibilty of each user to research a substance before they take it. Having said that though some of the compounds are so new that there is no data about neuro-toxicity and stuff and the first people to try these new compounds really are using themselves as guinea pigs. We may know that some immediate effects of MXP have been a couple of hospitalisations i believe from people taking large doses, but no one really knows the long term effects of any of these things as we are the first generation of people to be consuming them.
 
Transform said:
LSZ, AL-LAD, 5-MAPB, Methoxphenidine- all greats from 2013

I forget the relase dates for 6-APB, MXE, 4-FA, 2-FMA but with the current rate of innovation around 50/year we are getting a few through here and there which are really great in their own right.
Click to expand...

whas so great about 5mapb? short lived euphoria with a harsh comedown...
you re right about lsz and allad. how those ever surfaced is amazing and beyond my wildest hopes
 
I need to check out that lsz and allad

5-mapb is alright, never gotten a proper heavy comedown off it before. reminds me of weaker less trippy 6-apb or something
 
stereo mic said:
Also how does MXP compare to MXE?
Click to expand...

It doesn't really. Could hardly find two more different drugs. Both great in their own way (imo, ime, ymmv, etc, etc) but utterly different to the point of being opposites almost. The made up chemical name may share two letters but that's about it really. I'd look up more info on MXP before sampling if I were you. The Big & Dandy Methoxphenidine (2-MeO-Diphenidine) Thread over in PD and the previous incarnation of this thread have as much info as I'm aware of on BL.
 
mydrugbuddy said:
it's worrying if some of these RC benzos may possibly have failed toxicity tests. I would imagine that if they did then someone would know about it, and the info would gradually trickle down to everyone through forums such as this.
Click to expand...
I dunno, I think it's equally worrying that a lot of the current RCs will have had no toxicity tests. And in the case of failing tests, I would think the pharma companies probably keep a lot of their research and test results very quiet, so I wouldn't expect knowledge like that to be in the public domain.
 
If media court-cases are anything to go by then a team of wild horses won't be enough to drag negative drug trial information out of Big Pharma. You'll need a team of wild(ly) expensive lawyers, an especially stern judge, and a minor miracle to get that kinda info made public :\
 
or insider info...

where s the coked up exec who wants to sell his secrets for powder when you needs em
 
Shambles said:
If media court-cases are anything to go by then a team of wild horses won't be enough to drag negative drug trial information out of Big Pharma. You'll need a team of wild(ly) expensive lawyers, an especially stern judge, and a minor miracle to get that kinda info made public :\
Click to expand...

i get what you are saying, but how did the neuro-toxicity of one of the 'halogenated flouro-amphetamatines' become known then, or do you think it was just some chemistry/biologist/pharmacist bod on the drugs forum speculating, but this was sufficient for word to spread and for it to become a believed thing :?
 
I remember doing a bit of digging about the halogenated fluoro-amphetamines (that is a mouthful) and as far as I could see it was informed speculation.

That informed speculation suggested 4-FA was not as likely to be bad as the other ones. IIRC. For the accumulation of toxic nasties anyway.
 
Unless one of the major pharmaceutical companies has started a sideline making purely recreational stimulants any speculation about neurotoxicity of said purely recreational stimulants would have to be just that really: speculation. Informed speculation but ultimately still speculation. Despite the 'Research Chemical" tag we all know there is little or no actual research done on any of this stuff aside from the handful that have filtered down from more mainstream sources (aMT, for example).
 
It's not as if there have been no studies of 4-FA though. Plenty of research references available going back to 1970, just from the wikipedia page. But I've not read the papers, and I'm not saying it's "safe" whatever that might mean.
 
I must confess I have not read the wiki page for 4-FA. Am somewhat surprised there's research going back that far but I guess stimulants in general have always been a popular category for research. I just assumed that as 4-FA was so clearly abusable, and with no obvious signs of it having much prospect of being anything other than recreational, that there wouldn't be much (if any) "proper" research done on it. I sit corrected :)
 
4-FA does not cause long-lasting depletion of brain serotonin, unlike its analogues 4-CA and 4-BA. This is thought to "reflect the inability of the fluoro-compound to be metabolized in the same way as the other haloamphetamines."[4]
Contrary to popular belief, neurotoxicity does not increase down the series of para-halogenated amphetamine derivatives, even though serotonin releasing potency does follow this trend. For example, 4-iodoamphetamine is less toxic than is 4-chloroamphetamine.[3][5] Hence, this property is not related to serotonin releasing potency as such, since PAL-287 was reported to be not at all neurotoxic even though it is a powerful 5-HT releasing agent.[6]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top