Miscellaneous What Psychedelics Do You All Wish Were More Accessible?

[The Holy Quadruplty]

Have y'all tried the road trip gummies that has Lions Mane, and a secret mix of secret Tryptamines ment to replicate the effects of Psilocin?!

If so what do you think is in them?

I think it's like 4 Meo Det, or like 4 Aco DMT. I have no idea, but even tho it says no Psilacten, or however you spell it (the drug that metabolizes into Psilocybin) I think that it feels similar to Psilocin.

 

[The Holy Quadruplty]

I wish all psychedelics were available to me

I'm on Nutmeg, and Amanita Muscaria.

 

[The Holy Quadruplty]

Do y'all think enough Nutmeg could make any Tryptamine, from Coffee although I know there's only trace amounts of it, but I mean with other serotonergic drugs, and stuff mixed too.... Make any DMT from the Tryptamine orally active?! I know Coffee has MAOIs in it as well.

 

[TheLightBringer]

Do y'all think enough Nutmeg could make any Tryptamine, from Coffee although I know there's only trace amounts of it, but I mean with other serotonergic drugs, and stuff mixed too.... Make any DMT from the Tryptamine orally active?! I know Coffee has MAOIs in it as well.

Nutmeg has no tryptamines but it does contain myristicin and elemicin, which unless youre a rabbit will NOT turn into the fun kind of phenethylamines and instead just gives you a long lasting stoning deliriant high.


Its a pretty shitty drug and its quite toxic as well

 

[PhatBoy714]

I would love to my hands on some mescaline....

 

[The Holy Quadruplty]

Nutmeg has no tryptamines but it does contain myristicin and elemicin, which unless youre a rabbit will NOT turn into the fun kind of phenethylamines and instead just gives you a long lasting stoning deliriant high.


Its a pretty shitty drug and its quite toxic as well

I said the Tryptamine that's in Coffee, and or chocolate in trace amounts like combining nutmeg with them... Lmfao

 

[unodelacosa]

Wouldnt it make more sense to say that the 3C-x series is the amphetamine equivalent of the 4-alkoxy variants of mescaline?
Since they are 3,5-dimethoxy subbed with the 4th position changed around for different alkoxy substitutions.

Yeah you're right. It only includes the 3,5-dimethoxy-4-alkyloxy-subbed amphetamines. We could call them 4-substituted 3,5-dimethoxyamphetamines, substituted 3,4,5-trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA-1) analogues, or 3C-scalines… But that's an excellent point you make that the 4-position requires an alkyloxy moiety to count as being in the "3C" family. I suppose then 4-bromo-3,5-dimethoxyamphetamine would not count as a 3C-x drug… interesting.

So bring back 2-C s [exclude the ones that are dangerous.

That's too vague. Any of them are potentially dangerous, and at the same time, none of them are simply too dangerous for anyone. That's why it's important to address the issue by educating the public so adults can make informed decisions on their own in this matter, and we could better ensure safety for compounds ppl will take anyways, legal or not. This is certainly not worthy of felony status, at the very least. I don't think most people realize how damaging to one's life a felony record can be. The punishment doesn't fit the "crime" if we must call a victimless act a crime.

Same goes for the DOxx series to i guess [imo they stay illegal, but it s not about me/ bring in the expert s]

It's still arbitrary, and we don't need so-called experts to cherry-pick which psychotropic compounds we can and can't use, which plants we can and can't have, and what we can and can't do to our own corporeal bodies, the only real thing in this world anyone truly ever possesses. On the fundamental level, so long as you aren't harming anyone or infringing on their rights—to borrow an Aleister Crowley-ism—do whatever thy will shall be the whole of the law.

I'm just curious why you think DOxx compounds should stay illegal? Please tell me it's not just because of that one DOM panic event in the late 1960s…

Yes 100%

I will take The Pepsi Test with those two any day.

In a similar fashion, do you find psilacetin to be clearly noticeably different from psilocin? Do you think you could delineate one from the other in a double-blind test? How about psilocybin and psilocin? How can you rule out placebo? Don't you think it's possible you're overconfident in this ability of discernment. I'm guessing you don't believe so based on the "100%". What do you think about confirmation bias and other subjective misreadings? Mind you – I'm not saying you're not right; I'm just curious what makes you so confident here, and also if you don't mind, could you describe the differences, por favor? Genuine request, I'm not trying to, like, idk, set you up or something. I wanna be clear I'm just looking for discussion, and no offense is intended here, for reals. One love.

 

[xdrc]

Wouldnt it make more sense to say that the 3C-x series is the amphetamine equivalent of the 4-alkoxy variants of mescaline?
Since they are 3,5-dimethoxy subbed with the 4th position changed around for different alkoxy substitutions.

I can't find the correct Shulgin quote to back up the nomenclature right now, but it must have been either in PiHKAL or in Ask Dr. Shulgin. Shulgin declared compounds which first existed as amphetamines and were then brought to their phenethylamines in history of conceiving as 2C-x compounds. Contrary, when the compound first existed as a phenethylamine and then lengthened to an amphetamine, he declared it a 3C-x compound. However, PiHKAL is in its range limited to examples of scaline-derived 3C-x and DOx/ALEPH (DOT-x)-derived 2C-x. But it is clearly stated that 2C stands for 2 carbon (meaning it is a 1-phenyl-2-aminoETHANE), and 3C for 3 carbon (meaning it is a 1-phenyl-2-aminoPROPANE) and by that logic this series would extent to 4C for 4 carbon, yielding the 1-phenyl-2-aminoBUTANEs. Even while historically it has been limited to the scalines (which I'd personally define as anything 3,4,5-trialkoxylated, alkylthioethers being okay too) starting out as phenethylamines, and the DOx starting out as amphetamines, I would not limit it as such. But granted, the whole 2C/3C/4C things, just like the rest of PiHKAL is really messed up. What about 4C-E, for instance. Is it 4-ethoxy-3,5-dimethoxy-a-ethyl-phenethylamine (derived from escaline/3C-E), or 4-ethyl-2,5-dimethoxy-a-ethylphenethylamine (derived from DOEt/2C-E)? In cases like these, we can be grateful that Shulgin was silly and called 2C-D as such and not the more logical 2C-M. But even so again one could argue that DESOXY (as in 4-desoxymescaline, i.e. 3,5-dimethoxy-4-methylphenethylamine) would deserve to be whimsically shortened to just D (in recognition of the great trivial names mescaline, escaline, isoproscaline, etc. being shortened to their respective initials), and then we would call 3,5-dimethoxy-4-methyl-a-ethylphenethylamine 4C-D too! Isn't that great?

Well, sorry for the rant and all. But it should be clear by now that one shouldn't mix coming first in a chemical space and tripping frequently at that, like Shulgin did On the other hand the PiHKAL nomenclature is really interesting because it is a unique case of a quite complex chemical space being attached all kinds of emotions to it. If PiHKAL was just a series of compounds never making it out of academic journals or internal papers within industry, there wouldn't be a need for concise and simple nomenclature. But here we remember the time our ass has been whipped by the 2C-E, the great sex we had on 2C-B, how we had that weird bodyload on TMA-2, how we were enthralled by the visuals on 2C-T-2, etc. So we need those names and often times the needs of a casual user and a chemist are differing. For instance the NBOMe nomenclature is quite interesting because the numbers stand for the position of the methoxys, while the letter stands for the substitutent in position 4. So we could call 2C-B 25B, or we could call mescaline 345, and TMA-1 by extension maybe 3C-345. A lot of derivatives could be named, but then what to do with the FLYs, additional substituents (e.g. 2-bromomescaline, would we call it 345B2?), etc? Well, I like the whimsical nature of PiHKAL nomenclature and the historical implications. I'm often annoyed at people writing "2-CB" instead of 2C-B, but if I'm being honest to myself, if I look through the old pharmacology notebook by Shulgin, these compounds were first actually called 2-Cx compounds. Arguably, 2C-x makes more sense and this is what prevailed.

It's still arbitrary, and we don't need so-called experts to cherry-pick which psychotropic compounds we can and can't use, which plants we can and can't have, and what we can and can't do to our own corporeal bodies, the only real thing in this world anyone truly ever possesses. On the fundamental level, so long as you aren't harming anyone or infringing on their rights—to borrow an Aleister Crowley-ism—do whatever thy will shall be the whole of the law.

I agree with my body my rules, but at the same time I'd be happy to see even some of the less polarising derivatives legal and we need to be realistic, change comes slow. I'm not sure what my response would be to give up all the phenethylamines I have known and loved (illegaly) in exchange for 2C-B being legal, but it would give me a long time thinking.

 

[TheLightBringer]

I can't find the correct Shulgin quote to back up the nomenclature right now, but it must have been either in PiHKAL or in Ask Dr. Shulgin. Shulgin declared compounds which first existed as amphetamines and were then brought to their phenethylamines in history of conceiving as 2C-x compounds. Contrary, when the compound first existed as a phenethylamine and then lengthened to an amphetamine, he declared it a 3C-x compound. However, PiHKAL is in its range limited to examples of scaline-derived 3C-x and DOx/ALEPH (DOT-x)-derived 2C-x. But it is clearly stated that 2C stands for 2 carbon (meaning it is a 1-phenyl-2-aminoETHANE), and 3C for 3 carbon (meaning it is a 1-phenyl-2-aminoPROPANE) and by that logic this series would extent to 4C for 4 carbon, yielding the 1-phenyl-2-aminoBUTANEs. Even while historically it has been limited to the scalines (which I'd personally define as anything 3,4,5-trialkoxylated, alkylthioethers being okay too) starting out as phenethylamines, and the DOx starting out as amphetamines, I would not limit it as such. But granted, the whole 2C/3C/4C things, just like the rest of PiHKAL is really messed up. What about 4C-E, for instance. Is it 4-ethoxy-3,5-dimethoxy-a-ethyl-phenethylamine (derived from escaline/3C-E), or 4-ethyl-2,5-dimethoxy-a-ethylphenethylamine (derived from DOEt/2C-E)? In cases like these, we can be grateful that Shulgin was silly and called 2C-D as such and not the more logical 2C-M. But even so again one could argue that DESOXY (as in 4-desoxymescaline, i.e. 3,5-dimethoxy-4-methylphenethylamine) would deserve to be whimsically shortened to just D (in recognition of the great trivial names mescaline, escaline, isoproscaline, etc. being shortened to their respective initials), and then we would call 3,5-dimethoxy-4-methyl-a-ethylphenethylamine 4C-D too! Isn't that great?

Well, sorry for the rant and all. But it should be clear by now that one shouldn't mix coming first in a chemical space and tripping frequently at that, like Shulgin did On the other hand the PiHKAL nomenclature is really interesting because it is a unique case of a quite complex chemical space being attached all kinds of emotions to it. If PiHKAL was just a series of compounds never making it out of academic journals or internal papers within industry, there wouldn't be a need for concise and simple nomenclature. But here we remember the time our ass has been whipped by the 2C-E, the great sex we had on 2C-B, how we had that weird bodyload on TMA-2, how we were enthralled by the visuals on 2C-T-2, etc. So we need those names and often times the needs of a casual user and a chemist are differing. For instance the NBOMe nomenclature is quite interesting because the numbers stand for the position of the methoxys, while the letter stands for the substitutent in position 4. So we could call 2C-B 25B, or we could call mescaline 345, and TMA-1 by extension maybe 3C-345. A lot of derivatives could be named, but then what to do with the FLYs, additional substituents (e.g. 2-bromomescaline, would we call it 345B2?), etc? Well, I like the whimsical nature of PiHKAL nomenclature and the historical implications. I'm often annoyed at people writing "2-CB" instead of 2C-B, but if I'm being honest to myself, if I look through the old pharmacology notebook by Shulgin, these compounds were first actually called 2-Cx compounds. Arguably, 2C-x makes more sense and this is what prevailed.


I agree with my body my rules, but at the same time I'd be happy to see even some of the less polarising derivatives legal and we need to be realistic, change comes slow. I'm not sure what my response would be to give up all the phenethylamines I have known and loved (illegaly) in exchange for 2C-B being legal, but it would give me a long time thinking.

Love this post

So we could call 2C-B 25B

Isnt there a family of 25x-NBs without the methoxy sub on the benzyl like the NBoMes?

Simply 25B-NB or N-Benzyl-2C-B, I think they were barely active if I remember correctly

Im surprised there hasnt been more talk about the 3- 4- methoxy subbed NBoMes, or the Fluoro subbed 25x-NBFs, I wonder if the other alkoxy and halogen derivatives of 25x-NBxxx drugs would be active

 

[xdrc]

Love this post


Isnt there a family of 25x-NBs without the methoxy sub on the benzyl like the NBoMes?

Simply 25B-NB or N-Benzyl-2C-B, I think they were barely active if I remember correctly

Im surprised there hasnt been more talk about the 3- 4- methoxy subbed NBoMes, or the Fluoro subbed 25x-NBFs, I wonder if the other alkoxy and halogen derivatives of 25x-NBxxx drugs would be active

From what I heard 25B-NB is marginally more active than 2C-B, but I heard both reports of it being orally active and inactive, so who knows how credible they are. A trusted friend currently has this material in their bioassay regiment.

 

[TheLightBringer]

From what I heard 25B-NB is marginally more active than 2C-B, but I heard both reports of it being orally active and inactive, so who knows how credible they are. A trusted friend currently has this material in their bioassay regiment.

Makes sense that they might be orally inactive like the Nbomes but could be more potent through other ROAs. I wonder how active it would be IV

Another interesting thing I remembered is reading a claim that the NBOHs and Nbomes will metabolize into their 2C-x counterparts orally, so if taken in high enough dosages will just convert to their 2C-x variant (while also being a huge waste of dosages). Although I would not want to be the one testing this theory out

 

[Zopiclone bandit]

psilacetin

no idea what it is.

 

[unodelacosa]

we need to be realistic, change comes slow.

Yes, I've been saying that for a long time. We can't just flip the switch without having precautionary measures in place, and these things need to be done in phases starting with decriminalization and a massive PSA campaign. Addiction recovery clinics would need to go in place and retroactive application of decriminalization would need to be planned for as this could suddenly release a large number of people who are currently incarcerated for simple possession charges.

I'm not sure what my response would be to give up all the phenethylamines I have known and loved (illegaly) in exchange for 2C-B being legal, but it would give me a long time thinking.

What do you mean by "give up all the phenethylamines you have known and loved"? Give them up how? You can't give up experiences you've already had. The entire premise is arbitrary. The right way to do is to legalize all of these compounds, put some oversight on their production to ensure safety, educate the public on the compound and its risks, limit its sale and consumption to adults only, and add a reasonable and fair tax to fund these efforts and no more.

Isnt there a family of 25x-NBs without the methoxy sub on the benzyl like the NBoMes?

There's the 25x-NBOH series. They're considered marginally safer than the NBOMes which has a pretty dodgy past with some seemingly relatively low dose ODs on record.

So we could call 2C-B 25B, or we could call mescaline 345, and TMA-1 by extension maybe 3C-345.

I've had "IsoMescaline 246" before, aka: 2,4,6-TMPEA or 2,4,6-trimethoxyphenethylamine.

 

[unodelacosa]

no idea what it is.

Psilacetin is another name for 4-AcO-DMT. It acts as a prodrug for 4-HO-DMT, aka psilocin. In a similar manner, 4-AcO-MET is a prodrug to 4-HO-MET.

 

[Deleted member 578389]

weed should be legal and if your bipolar and can prove with your doctor you are taking antipsychotics then they should let you buy it.

that would be a good improvement for me if the price could go down a bit.

 

[xdrc]

Makes sense that they might be orally inactive like the Nbomes but could be more potent through other ROAs. I wonder how active it would be IV

Another interesting thing I remembered is reading a claim that the NBOHs and Nbomes will metabolize into their 2C-x counterparts orally, so if taken in high enough dosages will just convert to their 2C-x variant (while also being a huge waste of dosages). Although I would not want to be the one testing this theory out

This only happens partially and is not to be done for various obvious reasons.

There's the 25x-NBOH series. They're considered marginally safer than the NBOMes which has a pretty dodgy past with some seemingly relatively low dose ODs on record.

But there is also the plain NB series, which is just N-benzyl, without any moieties on the benzyl. It's been explored pharmacologically, but there are only very few and questionable reports about their activity in mankind.

e had "IsoMescaline 246" before, aka: 2,4,6-TMPEA or 2,4,6-trimethoxyphenethylamine

Was it active? I've heard great things about 246-NBOMe and 246-NBOH, and from the same source it was said that the NBOH was actually more dangerous to health than the NBOMe thereof.

What do you mean by "give up all the phenethylamines you have known and loved"? Give them up how?

This is a thought experiment far removed from reality. The question - entirely hypothetically - would be if I'd vow to never take a phenethylamine besides say 2C-B and mescaline again if I got legal access for those two. Fortunately all are illegal and certainly worth it, so no use thinking too hard. Of course I know this question is not practical, as governmental entities are not Aztec gods (in truth they stray far from god!) which can be pleased by sacrifices of some arbitrary psychedelic phenethylamines. The value of this question is not towards striking a deal with the DEA or whoever is responsible, but rather to think about which psychedelics are worth how much risk of freedom to me.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

That's too vague. Any of them are potentially dangerous, and at the same time, none of them are simply too dangerous for anyone. That's why it's important to address the issue by educating the public so adults can make informed decisions on their own in this matter, and we could better ensure safety for compounds ppl will take anyways, legal or not. This is certainly not worthy of felony status, at the very least. I don't think most people realize how damaging to one's life a felony record can be. The punishment doesn't fit the "crime" if we must call a victimless act a crime.

When legal, before harm or research was done to protect the reckless.
I tossed 2C-T7 because it was named something weird like:
´Blue-Mystic', 5-di-methoxy 6 x 5 mg. WTF

Searched internet, but no answer s. Tried 1/ 1/2 7.5 mg no effect s and tossed.
[i don t advise that/ reckless. Trusted the smart-shop that till then provided RC s under their chemical name. Under the radar]
They had provided me with labelled 2C-B and 2C-T2 in the past.

It's still arbitrary.

Very true why i would not trust my judgement that 2C-T2 and 2C-B are safe.
I can in no way guarantee that or prove that they are. The use of Arbitrary is needless,
its neither a rule/ law nor my opinion. I totally agree, sadly. Were F4E1 all like me, drug s would be free. Excluding Alcohol-ly & Tobacco-cy.

And most of all a detrimental lifestyle too, heavy taxed for sure !
Main cause of death in the Western World.
To get thing s in a bit of perspective concerning bad.

I am dead by society and no drug has killed me yet, i d use Bluelight for Harm-reduction nuff said. Prevention at best. Please legalise Heroin & Coke !
The amount of impurities must be costing more lives then Covid as of yet.

sarcasme ?, i dd hope so.

 

[Bitchniggaz]

I always felt like it was basically Disso + Mdma headspace with more colorful slightly lysergic acid type visuals and then a heavy opiate on top. The opiate element has always been really apparent to me.

Yeah thats a great description actually, its also way different depending on the dose.
First and secours platue is awesome for watching scifi movies in a dark room.
Third platue and above is the ultimate exploration into a dissio realm ime.

However it takes it's toll and need planning, if i take a high dose then i cant really be in public for at least a day after.

 

[Bitchniggaz]

I would love to my hands on some mescaline....

You can probably find dried San pedro chips online.
They are potent and legal in alot of countries.
In worst case buy living San Pedro cacti.

 

[unodelacosa]

And most of all a detrimental lifestyle too, heavy taxed for sure !
Main cause of death in the Western World.

The main cause of death in the western world is heart disease followed closely by cancer (with lung cancer being the leading variety), and then lower respiratory disease like COPD coming in third.

You can probably find dried San pedro chips online.

You sure can. You can even find them pre-ground up for your convenience. Also: Peruvian Torch. The extraction is a pain in the ass due to the chlorophyl and plant fats which want to saponify and form emulsions

The value of this question is not towards striking a deal with the DEA or whoever is responsible, but rather to think about which psychedelics are worth how much risk of freedom to me.

Fair, but that’s my point — no one should have to risk their freedom to explore their minds with psychoactive tools we’re finally beginning to understand well enough for responsible use and harm reduction. The DEA (or equivalents abroad) shouldn’t be striking deals or writing drug laws — their job is to enforce laws made by legislators in consultation with medical and biochemical experts combined with the philosophy that we should preserve and protect individual freedoms balanced against public health, safety, and welfare.

246-NBOMe and 246-NBOH, and from the same source it was said that the NBOH was actually more dangerous to health than the NBOMe thereof.

Idk about that. I can't see where making that moiety attached to the n-benzene ring a hydroxy instead of a methoxy group would somehow make it more potent and/or more dangerous. That doesn't really make sense. We also know that the NBOH series is less potent than the NBOMe series, so that alone qualifies it for being potentially safer. Having said all of that, I tend to agree with you that the NBOMes and NBOHs are not as dangerous as it initially might have seemed like… Anyways, I'm basing this on the words of its inventor, Dr. David Nichols with his group at Purdue University, and also basing it on this: https://en.psychonautwiki.org/wiki/25I-NBOMe#Toxicity_and_harm_potential

I have no experience with the NB-only series, so I can't speak knowledgeably enough on this topic. What you said wouldn't surprise me though if it were mostly inactive.

As to 2,4,6-isoMescaline, sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say 2,4,6-isoMescaline-NBOMe, not the plain version. It seemed active to me, though it was nothing special and didn't really hold a candle to a compound like 25I-NBOMe in my opinion.