> It's called "chemical fluff" dunno who named it that
I did, back when I was NSPD mod. Chemical fluff, in the sense that any of these structures have the same value as bellybutton lint.
> As long as it's moved to Basic Chemistry - I think THAT was the mistake. Where it is confers status and that status is being ABUSED.
At the time of this thread's posting, Basic Chemistry did not exist as a forum, or it would be moved there.
> 1-bromo-1-phenyl-2-methylaminopropane
1-chloro-1-phenyl-2-methylaminopropane
Dingus, those are resp. bromoephedrine, and chloroephedrine. They don't need stupid names, and are not good drugs.
(-)-Chloroephedrine is an
irreversible inhibitor of CYP2D6 so if you want codeine to stop working for a few months, give it a try.
They are also
not recreational and at best act sort of like ephedrine type stimulants, increasing HR/BP.
Also, both of these are unstable, and form 1,2-dimethyl-3-phenylaziridine hydrochloride/bromide by intramolecular SN
2 between the halide and the secondary nitrogen, when heated or stored for long periods of time, the bromide less stable than the chloride.
> Have Either One Of You Ever Actually Even Read PiHKAL? I'm Using The Same Methodolgy.
No, you're really not. Shulgin did more than just doodle a million silly structures and publish them. He also did not leap around randomly, throwing out different analogues of different drugs as his moods changed. Instead he conducted systematic investigations of known active products. Making analogues of mescaline (escaline, proscaline, DESOXY) helped establish the importance of the 4-position. then the discovery of 2C-D as a positional isomer of DESOXY led to the 2C-x series, and also logically the
alpha-methyl analogues the DOx series.
Shulgin's research was successful
because he could make and test these compounds, and using knowledge of what was most active, this helped him direct his attention towards certain structural features and allowed the creation of even more active analogues.
You will note there are not many entries in PiHKAL that are total wild flights of fancy from the others. Everything was created with some active thought. Also, Shulgin provided synthesis methods, some novel, and discussion about why he made the particular compound, anecdotes of the effects, and sometimes how the name related to the drug/structure.
You are providing: structures, and frankly totally useless "names", and...
nothing else. No literature references, no logic behind
why the particular compound(s) would be interesting, no discussion, no thought. Whenever prompted for clarification, you come up with unhinged bursts of nonsense, unverifiable statements of "proof", or claims that go against all existing published scientific literature.
> I tried to post some trip reports over the years, but they all got flamed so hard
Because you have no credibility to your name, and I assume every one of them was on some "novel" compound hitherto unmentioned in the literature, i.e. making all of your claims
unverifiable and therefore more along the lines of creative fiction writing than an honest contribution to the pharmaceutical sciences.
> SWIM is trying to focus on the 2-iodo-4,5-mda that I'm on
You've been here
how long and should know better that there is no SWIMming in here as the pool was drained last year for sanitation purposes. (The level of methamphetamine in the pool water was unacceptable, from all the tweakers urinating in it). Also, nice mixing SWIM and I in the same sentence.
Anyway, you're going to have to focus pretty hard.
The bromo analogue is noted as having "amphetamine-like effects" at
350mg, but even Shulgin avoided it given the high dosage. There is no reason to believe that the iodo analogue would be any different.
And if you are really taking >300mg doses of compounds we frankly know very little about, I don't believe you have an IQ of 141, nor a particularly strong sense of self-preservation.
> N-allyl-1-(2-iodo-4,5-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-aminopropane
Oh look, even
less active.
> Se Requiere High Dosages
If you need to take 1 gram+ of a pure chemical to get an effect, it's generally not worth taking.
> I'm A Rolls Royce, Lamborghini, Blue Medina, Always Feining. Ragtop. Hooba Stank. Dub Mike. Raver. Bopper. Showstopper. Planet Rocker. Rock. Rock. Rock. Rocker.
More like a tool. You have to understand: it's posts like these, that contribute nothing at all to the discussion, that make you seem less like a credible source and more like a raving lunatic. And talk of shit like thought broadcasting doesn't help.
It really does no favours to you when you eschew plain, basic English, and instead Prefer To Always Talk In Title Case, And Often Make Comments That Do Not Logically Follow Or Relate To The Topic At Hand. It makes you look like a 14 year old who got his first AOL account.
Oh also - still waiting on some sort of substantive proof. You
do have something besides just tall tales and drawings right?
www.vice.com
