-
N&PD Moderators: Skorpio
Disubstituted Haloamphetamines
- Thread starter black53
- Start date
I couldn't find any from a a preliminary search. However as most RC,s you can assume that there isn't much information other than chemical breakdown. Testing on humans using research chemicals is very rare if existent at all. When you compare to the high amount of psychoactive substances RC's represent the ability to individually test conclusively is even more difficult.
'
You might fead this help to shed some light on your question: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114098
If anyone has evidence of testing with either Humans or Rheeus monkeys I would love to take a look.2 or 4-substituted Haloamphetamines -- why just fluorine?
I've been made aware that 2-fma and 4-fa have been flooding the markets rather intensely.
I read somewhere on Bluelight that fluorine aids in the lipophilicity of the compound, and as such can increase its cardiotoxicity by dissolving in the fatty tissue of the heart (epicardial adipose tissue.)
As this was a secondhand source, I'm unconfident of the validity of that statement. Any amphetamine in excess is terrible for the heart, and it would be initially difficult to pin it down to a simple fluorination, let alone in novel compounds with very little research on them.
If indeed the fluorinated amphetamines are more lipophilic, they should cross the blood-brain barrier more readily, which I would suspect to increase the rush compared to unhalogenated amphetamines. As fluorine binds very tightly, it acts akin to a highly electron-rich hydrogen, and doesn't provide much steric hindrance so it should fit in the pockets of the receptors rather snugly. More electrically rich AND sterically bulky compounds have been tested with similar or higher dosages.
What I'm trying to say is that fluorinated amphetamines should be nearly identical in dosages to their nonfluorinated counterparts. It's difficult to say whether or not it would be lower or higher in dosage, because it would appear that hydrogen bonding may play a role in the effects of MDMA versus methamphetamine. 5-APB is slightly more potent than 6-APB, which would indicate 4-FA to be more potent than say, 2-FA. As a logical extension, with gaps, 2-FMA appears to be less potent than 4-FA. The substitution at the 4 position, versus the 2 position, ends up mitigating the decrease in dosage with the N-methyl of amphetamine, versus the lack of methyl in regular amphetamine.
But why is only fluorine being used to halogenate amphetamines? Why not bromine, or chlorine? It seems odd that fluorine would be the only one. I don't recall the favorable formations from the entire halogen series in substituted aryl rings, so I can't say for sure that's not something to do with it. Fluorination though is more expensive.
I also need a little more convincing that fluorine would aid in lipophilicity, as I had read from another Bluelighter. I can't imagine fluorine being all that dangerous compared to regular amphetamines, ESPECIALLY considering how strongly fluorine binds. It does not get kicked out by other halogens.
I suspect that impurities are the greater risk than anything else. I'm also baffled as to the lack of 4-fma and 2-fa (or perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, completely possible.)
But the lack of a brominated amphetamine is what bothers me the most!!! 2c-b is stronger than 2c-f! I'll be looking intot his further, but for now it's going to keep me up at night!!The others can be mate, but you don't want to use them. They are toxic. The C-F bond is very strong so metabolism doesn't occur there, with the other halogens the bond isn't as strong, metabolism occurs there and toxicity results. 4-CA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-CA ) is the worse and is actually used in research to selectively kill serotonin neurons.
As to the 2-FA/2-FMA vs 4-FA/4-FMA, the first two are classical stimulants that work mostly just on dopamine and norephinephrine, while 4-FA/4-FMA are also serotonin releasers (some call them mdma light) which makes them more fun, but probably not good for daily use.
sekio
Bluelight Crew
Most of the fluorinated amphetamines have been 'made and tasted'. I've seen/heard of 2-FA, 2-FMA, 3-FA, 4-FA, 4-FMA.
The difference in lipophilicity between amphetamine and fluoroamphetamine is negligible. Amphetamine and its cousins are already pretty damn lipophilic, seeing as there is only one non-CH heteroatom in most of them...
Fluorine is less electronegative than the other halogens, as well as smaller, so it ends up acting more like a wierd looking hydrogen than a "true" halogen when you put it on molecules (in places where it doesn't interfere with the active site). Case in point, 4-fluoroamphetamine is much closer to "plain" amphetamine or MDA than to 4-chloroamphetamine, which is a serotonergic neurotoxin. You actually don't want to go for anything more complex than a fluorine. Most plain 4-substituted amphetamines with electronegative stuff put on the 4-position is this way, actually. 4-methylthioamphetamine is a MAOI and super rough. 4-methoxyamphetamine is the infamous PMA. 4-chloro, bromo, iodo amphetamines are one-dose killers of serotonin-utilising neurons.
Substitution at the 2' position is kind of "out of the way" compared to substitution at the 4' position. 2-FA is much closer to plain amphetamine than it is to 4-FA. I suspect that e.g. 2-methoxy-amphetamine will be this way too.
The pharmacology of 2C-x does not translate to amphetamines, because the two drugs target different systems.
Keep in mind that most users of amphetamine take Adderall (75% D-amphetamine) or Dexedrine (95% D-amphetamine). The commercially availiable fluoroamphetamines are racemic so you need to correct for them being only ~50% "good stuff".
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
Just merged these two highly similar topics.
ebola
Actually, fluorine is the most electronegative element. Its electronegativity and orbitals make it a tightly bound halogen. It is not readily polarizable, compared to the larger halogens. This is the case with the halogen order, making iodine most readily kicked out of molecules (kinetic discussion, not thermodynamic). Fluorine is also ortho-para directing but deactivating on the benzene ring. This is my suspicion as to why 2,4 substitution is seen, but not 3 or 5, although 6 should also theroetically be possible.
If I had to guess tat the synthesis without knowing what route the vendors are following, I would suspect they're not fluorinating first.
Chlorine is a serotonergic neuroxin, yes, but bromo and iodo amphetamines don't share that neurotoxicity, despite having greater affinity. All of them do, but fluorine the least of all. This suggests a more complex mechanism by which the neurotoxicity takes places.
My point wasn't that 2' substitution should be done more often, but rather it's odd to me that I've only found FMA fluorinated at the 2 position, and FA only at the 2, but of course maybe I haven't looked enough.
My main point regarding the strength of the fluoroamphetamines wasn't so much their comparison to each other, but rather that the methamphetamine analogue is considerably weaker compared to the amphetamine analogue. Regardless, it's hard to compare since the ones I'm familiar with are not substituted on the same spot.I am thinking about trying 2-FA or 2-FMA, leaning towards the former.
In this study it is said that "p-Fluoroamphetamine, in comparison with p-chloroamphetamine and p-iodoamphetamine, showed much stronger inhibition of [3H]dopamine than [3H]5-HT uptake into rat brain synaptosomes but was less selective than amphetamine. p-Fluoroamphetamine (7.0 mg/kg, i.p.), 1 h after administration, strongly elevated (849% of baseline) extracellular dopamine in rat striatum measured using in vivo microdialysis."
After reading this, the reports of lacking euphoria compared to amps lead me to assume the lesser selectivity results in less subjectively experienced "rush" but whilst having equal (or more) dopamine in the brain.
With this in mind, I'm thinking 2-FMA will be more neurotoxic than 2-FA by the fact meth-amp is more neurotoxic than amp.
Is it safe to assume 2-FA would be safer than 2-FMA for my mind?
Another question on my mind are the PNS effects. As it's mixed and not the dex enantiomer would 2-FMA have less PNS and cardivascular effects with frequent use?
I assume concrete answers are unavailable, but any guidance from the knowledgeable is much appreciated.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
To my knowledge, there has not yet been research conducted on 2fma. Given 2fa's similarity to the parent compound, we should expect 2fma to be similar to meth (racemic meth, in particular, as it is the racemate being sold as an RC).
ebola
