• Find All Reports by Search Term
    Find Reports
    Find Tagged Reports by Substance
    Substance Category
    Specific Substance
    Find Reports
  • Trip Reports Moderator: Cheshire_Kat

Mebroqualone (methaqualone/Quaalude analogue) - Tasting Notes (1st time)

babylonboy

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
1,410
There’s very little info available on this chemical. Though the most well-known chemical to which it's related is methaqualone, it is a closer analogue of mecloqualone, a similar drug that was approved for pharmaceutical use in the '60s and distributed legitimately. Even so, it's hard to find dosage data. I decided to start at 5mg to make sure I’m not allergic, and that I haven’t been sent DOI by mistake, then move up to 20mg, and play it by ear from there.

About me- white young male, 1.8 m, about 90 or 95 kg (the only scales I have max out a lot lower than that, so guessing is necessary). I'm a pretty experienced drug-pig, of the GABAergics, I have used diazepam, etizolam, GHB, GBL, alcohol, and pregabalin (the apple of my eye), extensively. I tasted etaqualone; I wrote it off as a dud. Either I'm tenacious, or deluded, but I thought mebroqualone might be of more worth, and so a gram was acquired.

The sample is a dense, off-white, crystally powder with a sandy texture. Let’s get started.

With 5mg of gritty crystal underneath my tongue, I taste nothing. I think this is a bad sign- have I been ripped? 10 minutes afterwards, I feel a wooziness. It could be a flood of placebomine; it could just be post-luncheon parasympathetic effects. I decide not to draw any conclusions from this. I don't appear to have any severe reaction of any kind. Whatever it was that I felt, it had dissipated within the quarter hour.

20 more milligrams are rubbed on my gums. 6 minutes later, I feel good. Is it the drug? How to tell? It seems like the effect of a drug, but I'm trying to pretend I'm a scientist, and not listening to Aphex Twin on my sofa and getting high, so I tell myself that the data is too sparse to avoid underdetermination. Again, the effect is fleeting. At 17 minutes post-dose, I don't feel as good, and at 23, I am at baseline. Looks like I'll be pressing on, though.

Now, what we've all been waiting for. I dump 40 mg into the centre of a square of foil, and roll a tight tube. As I bring the flame slowly up from beneath, I draw in from above. The material melts cleanly and quickly, to my satisfaction. The liquid is transparent, runny, and of a faint yellow colour. The kind of colour I expect a brominated compound to be, for some reason. The fumes evolve, and taste a little bitter, though not harsh at all. I hold the smoke down, and I know I have an active substance on my hands. The character? Too early to say. The glee I felt with 20 mg sublingual doesn't seem to be there. 40 mg is a lot of stuff; the deep lungful I have taken is barely a dent, so once more into the breach I go. This time, I am certain, this is no blank. 4 minutes since I lit the flame, and I am stoned for sure.

22 minutes after the initial toke, I take a big, deep hit. It hits like a freight train. I melt, knocking my notepad to the floor, slouching into a heap. The rush is intense, but not all that euphoric- I am impaired more than elated. I look at my watch to note the time; it takes me too long to interpret the display. I am disoriented; scratch that, I'm totally fucked. I'm not having as much fun as I'd hoped, though. It's the same kind of shovel-to-the-head slamming hit of GBL, but the character is quite different, there's not the orgasmic feeling in the body. It's not as clean as a benzo; it feels more like Lyrica, though it lacks whatever that special magic is that makes pregabalin my favourite downer. This stuff works, no doubt, but I don't see a niche for it. Does it do anything better than the rest? The instantaneous come-up is notable, but the comparison I'm drawn to is vaped fentanyl, and it is not a favourable one. My first hit of fent was breathtakingly, exquisitely enjoyable- this is like a cheap knock off. It's better than etaqualone, but I'm not smitten, by any stretch. 7 minutes after I was hit for six, I am coming down. The fact that such a short-acting drug doesn't induce a compulsive craving to redose says something, I think. I don't think the potential for addiction is the greatest worry with this one. 35 minutes after I first sparked up, the dose has been consumed, leaving remarkably little residue. It seems pure, at least.

It seems that lung capacity is a limiting factor on intake, so I eschew the scale and tip an unmeasured pile onto the aluminium. It is a little fiddly to smoke, it doesn't form a hard little beetle like smack, but little rivulets that flow elusively, so I think little and often is the best tactic. I don't feel all that high, yet I'm distinctly clumsy and awkward. The combination of a clear mind and a limp, unresponsive body is not the best, despite what Hunter might say. I am perhaps acquiring a taste for it, as one so often does when getting to grips with the contours of the experience produced by a drug. It has some similarities to G and pregabalin, more so than anything else I've tasted, and there's a distinct bodily component to the experience. It's pleasant enough, I suppose, but probably a novelty, rather than a permanent addition to the arsenal. I'll report further as I rinse through the gram like the incorrigible fiend I am. I notice that the vapour condenses to a patina on my incisors, of which I'm not a great fan.

So, it's a hard-hitting, fast-acting, short-lasting, muscle-relaxing, and fairly unremarkable drug. It's far better than etaqualone, but as I got nothing at all from etaqualone, that's not saying a lot. If you like downers, and have a score to spare, it's probably worth a punt, but it's not going to win any trophies.

Questions?
 
Apocrypha:

200px-Mebroqualone.svg.png

3-(2-bromophenyl)-2-methylquinazolin-4(3H)-one
 
Thanks for taking the time to relate your experience, babylonboy. Pertinent questions raised. Seems it maybe might be useful for something, but not a go-to thing at all except for novelty.
 
^I appreciate the thanks, it's nice to know these things get read. I'd like to add that a friend of mine told me he was glad when I got through it, that it changed me and brought out a side he didn't like. It also did get a bit fiendy and moreish over time. Seems to have too many ugly sides for a drug that isn't that much fun. Hope that this trip report answers some questions, and that anyone who has any more questions won't hesitate to post.
 
tried this today, good report! I am going to try about 30mg oral I think. I've smoked piles of 20 to 40mg and had similar experiences as you
 
Had 1g of this stuff. It was a Long time ago so i don’t remember much of it but I had to Take doses of 200mg or higher for a proper effect and it also was rather uninteresting and a fair bit less good than the usual benzos.
 
Oddly, it didn't turn up in the dissertation I read in which a South African student studied 127 seized samples of pills being sold as 'Mandrax'.

The chloro homologue turned up as did positional isomers thereof i.e. the chloro in the meta position and disubstituted examples which had an ortho methyl and a meta chloro. The latter is in a patent and is noted as being around x1.5 the potency of methaqualone.

It just strikes me that of all the original studies in the 1950s, methaqualone was the best - I mean, it's logical isn't it?

HQ-355 was the work of a Japanese team in the 1970s. It's subject to a patent and was mentioned in the 'Annual Report of Medicinal Chemistry' and is 2-3x more potent than methaqualone. I would expect it to be subjectively more like methaqualone and that the increased synthetic cost would be offset by the increased potency. But it wouldn't be MORE profitable.

I think we now know that para substitutions may appear to provide compounds an order of magnitude more potent than the parent drug. But we also know they tend to cause seizures.

I'm kind of surprised nobody had taken a closer look at glutethimide. Swapping the ethyl side-chain for an allyl side-chain likely increases potency (and IS sold as a serious research ligand) but just as importantly, it turns out that 4-OH glutethimide is more potent as well. It's never going to be very potent and suppose the only possible use is if people cocomminently consume codeine - which is a very bad idea.

But great report!
 
Last edited:
So, it's a hard-hitting, fast-acting, short-lasting, muscle-relaxing, and fairly unremarkable drug. It's far better than etaqualone, but as I got nothing at all from etaqualone, that's not saying a lot. If you like downers, and have a score to spare, it's probably worth a punt, but it's not going to win any trophies.

Questions?
Well the Etaqualone i got 1 gram, vaped between some Weed was so potent.
It would flat me, so advise be sure your lying or save sitting down. When vaping.

The oral dose so high, 500 mg s orso. Tried 100 mg s Oral which was below threshold. The other 900 mg was vaped, and that was strong. 20/ 30 mg doses.
But like you mentioned not really fiending imo too.

Would expect that from something producing such a instant rush.
 
Well the Etaqualone i got 1 gram, vaped between some Weed was so potent.
It would flat me, so advise be sure your lying or save sitting down. When vaping.

About 20 years ago I was sent a sample of what was represented as etaqualone. I had the NMR and GC-MS data so I'm pretty sure it was etaqualone. But it singularly failed to elicit any response whatsoever even 500mg vaped. Maybe that's an issue with etaqualone? I don't know. But I sense that since the whole class binds to dozens of different GABA sites and acts as an antagonist at some, a inverse agonist at others, a silent agonist at one and then as apartial and full agonist at other sites. So mybe it is unpredictable?

Now I THINK someone posted a report on what they claimed to be the fluoro homologue of methaqualone and I did ask if maybe they meant HQ-355 but I got no response. Certainly the fluoro homologue of methaqualone has never turned up on the streets of South Africa.

There IS a little date on HQ-335 but a vendor would have to figure out a way of avoiding the use of watched precusors - which is possible, just not widely advertized.

 
About 20 years ago I was sent a sample of what was represented as etaqualone. I had the NMR and GC-MS data so I'm pretty sure it was etaqualone. But it singularly failed to elicit any response whatsoever even 500mg vaped. Maybe that's an issue with etaqualone? I don't know. But I sense that since the whole class binds to dozens of different GABA sites and acts as an antagonist at some, a inverse agonist at others, a silent agonist at one and then as apartial and full agonist at other sites. So mybe it is unpredictable?

Now I THINK someone posted a report on what they claimed to be the fluoro homologue of methaqualone and I did ask if maybe they meant HQ-355 but I got no response. Certainly the fluoro homologue of methaqualone has never turned up on the streets of South Africa.

There IS a little date on HQ-335 but a vendor would have to figure out a way of avoiding the use of watched precusors - which is possible, just not widely advertized.

Mine was not tested, but from a trusted [invite only eventually] old-vendor from Spain.
So seeing my oral experiment, it was not Methaqualone. But a little sprinkle vaped between Weed. Was very intoxicating, more then any other downer i used.

A instant Euphoric downer rush, that had me lay flat ASAP. Not like to much GHB.
Takes some time or K where you hole. More like Salvia, instant black out.
And pretty fast back up. Weid substance, ordered once.
 
I really would like to taste methaqualone or indeed HQ-355. I know @krkkhed is possibly the most experienced in this niche field. I'm just glad that they recognized that if vaped, methaqualone homologues can be WAY more potant than the oral dose would suggest.

The reasons I bang on about HQ-335 is because it's a 'second generation' homologue. The dangers of dimethaqualone and nitromethaqualone had come to light so the Japanese researchers knew to check those specific toxic side-effects. I think it even reached stage 1 trials in man. So while 'novel', in fact we do at least know that animal models showed it safe enough to proceed with human trials. Swapping the 2-methyl to a 2-fluoromethyl is a much more subtle alteration than swapping what is on the pendent aromatic. Certainly the FIRST thing tested was it's effect on seizure thresholds and proved to be safer on that score.

Compound 24 which has an ortho methyl meta chloro substitution of the pendent aromatic is the MOST potent and lo and behold, it HAS turned up represented as Mandrax in South Africa.

BTW I read decades ago that para substituted methaqualone homologues are dangerous because they act on the NMDA receptors - as agonists.

Plain methaqualone has a crazy complex action.


But it does appear that you cannot go much beyond x2 the activity of methaqualone without introducing pro-convulsant side-effects. I mean, with dimethaqualone out inrepid researcher discovered 12mg to be the appropriate dose for them but 24mg began to show toxic side-effects. What scares me is that IF someone were to sell 12mg dimethaqualone tablets where the excipients allowed the product to be vaped, it may well be very popular, at least initially. But it turned up as an RC in Germany a decade ago and reports in Land der Träume (a German-language HR site) commonly mentioned seizures.

A TI of 1 is riduculous. If one 'pill' vaped is fine but two 'pills' vaped begin to show pro-convulsant activity, that is far too dangerous. But some people have NO morals (but may sell morels).
 
Last edited:
Have tested out mebroqualone a bit over the past few days, this is what I initially had written in my notes: alot like methylmethaqualone but more heavy, lasts longer and also doesnt have any shakes so far. Which is good. I will say though, methylmethaqualone was cleaner in a way, felt almost speedier or more kind of "disorienting" im not quite sure what word to use. Mebroqualone is overall more powerful and pleasurable as a sedative, methylmethaqualone is so strong that it just feels like you're exhausted not really sedated. Mebroqualone is alot better in that regard, but it feels kind of muddy at some points....hence why I said methylmethaqualone felt cleaner. Not sure what thats about but I'm going to do some reading and theorizing later.

Since writing that I've only further solidified my thoughts. I feel like I prefer the rush and strength of methylmethaqualone in a way, however mebroqualone has a more pleasurable sedation and has me feeling good and euphoric for about 1-2 hours instead of just 30-45min. Also, I haven't experienced any shakes, tremors or the like from mebroqualone, which is very different than methylmethaqualone. Not using this as a sign to push it even more lol, there is certainly still a risk for that, but so far I haven't noticed anything
 
I would guess that the para (4) methyl of dimethaqualone is an almost ideal substrate for various enzymes so would presume it to undergo oxidation and maybe then gluconation.

The problem is it doesn't appear to matter WHAT you place at that para position. Any substitution make them convulsants.

You know, I have a theory that US3162634A (the patent covering nitromethaqualone) MAY have a flaw. Certainly it notes the 'surprisingly high activity' of the ortho methyl meta chloro homologue of methaqualone - a compound commonly sold as Mandrax in South Africa (Example 1 of patent). BUT more interestingly to me, is that it's the ortho nitro para methyl that is the MOST active, not the ortho methyl para nitro as most people appear to think. But even so, it still has that para methyl. So Example 2 is NOT as most diagrams suggest. Sadly, the study didn't test any monosubstituted examples so the ortho nitro homologue MAY be a bit more potent and reasonably safe.

That said, whenever you have an aromatic nitro group in a medicine - metabolism can produce toxins.

So that's why I GUESS that in South Africa, Example 1 is common while Example 2 and my theoretical homologue do not.
 
I would guess that the para (4) methyl of dimethaqualone is an almost ideal substrate for various enzymes so would presume it to undergo oxidation and maybe then gluconation.

The problem is it doesn't appear to matter WHAT you place at that para position. Any substitution make them convulsants.

You know, I have a theory that US3162634A (the patent covering nitromethaqualone) MAY have a flaw. Certainly it notes the 'surprisingly high activity' of the ortho methyl meta chloro homologue of methaqualone - a compound commonly sold as Mandrax in South Africa (Example 1 of patent). BUT more interestingly to me, is that it's the ortho nitro para methyl that is the MOST active, not the ortho methyl para nitro as most people appear to think. But even so, it still has that para methyl. So Example 2 is NOT as most diagrams suggest. Sadly, the study didn't test any monosubstituted examples so the ortho nitro homologue MAY be a bit more potent and reasonably safe.

That said, whenever you have an aromatic nitro group in a medicine - metabolism can produce toxins.

So that's why I GUESS that in South Africa, Example 1 is common while Example 2 and my theoretical homologue do not.
Huh...This is very interesting....
I hope someone starts testing there and finds something nice lol
 
The patent clearly gives the structure of 'nitromethaqualone' but the clue is in the name i.e. it has both a nitro AND a methyl and indeed compound 12 whose synthesis is described in Example 2 is the most potent of the series but not what the Wikipedia page shows.

But sadly, it seems some vendors ARE relying on Wikipedia! That's why NO medicinal chemist would ever trust a source where anyone can create and modify with no metric for the quality of the data,

Nitroqualone i.e. the homologue without the para methyl IS known i.e. the ortho methyl is simply swapped for an ortho nitro is here: GB-1055843-A

But nitroqualone has never shown up on the streets of South Africa. MAYBE because it's a GB patent so nobody noticed it, maybe because the synthesis is more complex, maybe because it's toxic, maybe because it's subjective effects aren't too great. But with such things, if a street drug has been around for 50+ years, you can bet that chemists tried out every homologue they could find to avoid the need for a controlled precursor.

I just don't think you can get much more than maybe x2 methaqualone potency without having something liable to cause seizures. If the cost of producing something twice as potent is twice as much... why would you bother?
 
Top