• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

Buprenorphine analogues

Status
Not open for further replies.
The case you are referring to was from the early-mid 1990s. aMT was not scheduled until 2003.
AET was an approved drug that was removed from the market but never scheduled.

At the time there were very few tryptamines scheduled. I believe just Psilocin, Psilocybin, DMT, 5-OH-DMT and DET were specifically listed at this time.

So indeed, it was not an analogue. Analogue status does not apply to approved drugs, for one, and because it's effect is so greatly different than DMT, it can't be considered to have substantially similar effect.

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/cases/federal/federal_analog1.shtml


why so hostel
Click to expand...

...
 
Ham-

I completely see your point(s) and as usual u are providing solid info. You are quite right that regarding the "substantially similar structure" clause, you would all but certainly be in violation of the analog act when trying to synth a bupe analog.
however, are u certain that the difference between full agonist and partial agonist, would not be sufficient reason to disqualify a bupe analog from being considered substantially similar in action? i wouldnt want to bet my freedom on it, but i would think that a reasonable argument could be made that a partial agonist is different enough in action to a full agonist and therefore, would not be considered a morphine analog.
its been said here many times that in order to be considered an analog, a substance must fulfill both the structural clause as well as the, "similar in action" clause. Is it really a foregone conclusion that partial agonism vs full agonism is not significant enough difference to disqualify a substance from fulfilling the "similar in action" clause.

ive found that u very very rarely give erroneous information in your posts, so if u are quite certain on this point, i am definitely inclined to believe u.
 
The law is unlikely to view a difference between full and partial agonists. The difference isn't really relevant from a physiological standpoint for the most part. The intoxication may not be the same, but it can be every bit as strong and euphoric, especially when IV'd.

They both bind to and activate the same receptor, but when a partial agonist binds, it's not fully effective at stimulating the receptor. They both relieve pain. They both cause miosis, constipation, vomiting, itching, etc.

HU-210, a structural analogue of delta-9-THC, is a full agonist, while THC is a partial agonist. However, HU-210 is still considered to be an analogue by the DEA.
 
Just scrap the cyclopropyl group. In other words, switch n-cyclopropylmethyl to plain n-methyl. Then you would have dihydroetorphine with tert-butyl instead of propyl...

Also, to take full advantage of those nifty suboxone pills, take the n-allyl from naloxone and replace it with n-methyl, and voilá, you have oxymorphone...
 
dihydroetorphine is far to potent,

Now we cant forget that a substance has to be sold for human consumption to violate one part of the analogue law. You guys really have been a big

I wast aware of Etorphine it seems to be the deal breaker, I'm going with the tramadol analogue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now this threads gonna get closed...you cant offer to pay people for ANYTHING here...
At least i dont think you can.
 
I wonder if there are orvinals (bup, etorphine) which also incorporate the 14-propanoxy moiety. Wouldn't they possibly be uber potent agonists? How about just simple N-methylnorbuprenorphine. My guess is that it is several thousand times potent (W/W) as morphine, and probably pure agonist. Couldn't the cyclopropylmethyl moiety easily react w/ conc. HBR in a halogenation elimination, (leaving N-methylnorbuprenorphine), and cyclopropylbromide? These are all just guesses.
 
How about just simple N-methylnorbuprenorphine.
Click to expand...

I already said that!

Anyways, the idea of adding a 14-phenylpropoxy-group would be an interesting one. Since it apparently cancels the antagonist effect of larger n-alkyl-substitutions.
 
dread said:
I already said that!

Anyways, the idea of adding a 14-phenylpropoxy-group would be an interesting one. Since it apparently cancels the antagonist effect of larger n-alkyl-substitutions.
Click to expand...


Actually I wasn't going to say anything, but if your going to be so picky, you MUST know I beat you to it ages ago;) hehe

h**p://VV VV VV.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=388307 :p<3=D:\
 
Wait wait wait wait wait.

Are you telling us that you're look for bupe analogs for your "legit" business to sell commercially? Um....Now I'm pretty sure that is against the rules. Besides, IMO, if you're selling these super-potent drugs, you should definitely not be taking pointers from people on an internet forum.

Not to mention the fact that, especially if you live in the US, expect to have the DEA breaking down your door soon.
 
I think he's looking for something legit as in legal to sell in an uncontrolled manner for non-human consumption. Like a phenazepam but a mu opioid agonist.

Is that against any rules
 
please don't solicit synthesis or targets for synthesis in an overt way.
it is almost impossible to square this with harm reduction.

a note to others who might offer information:
if someone is too dumb to figure this stuff for themselves, perhaps they are also to dumb to be responsible with any information given? just a thought.
giving fools access to dangerous things is the road to hell.
it is also worth considering that greenlighters posting here looking for RC info might have a honey pottish ulterior motive.
 
Last edited:
Coolio said:
I think he's looking for something legit as in legal to sell in an uncontrolled manner for non-human consumption. Like a phenazepam but a mu opioid agonist.

Is that against any rules
Click to expand...

what as a table decoration? or a conversation opener at parties?

what use is a mu agonist outside of a living organism?
 
^ Not to question your authority, but why keep it open if you (appear to) think it only exists to break and/or circumvent laws? Whether he's a narc or just an idiot, I don't see why any of us should have anything to do with this.


"I need help bad." <------------ sketchy


vecktor said:
if someone is too dumb to figure this stuff for themselves, perhaps they are also to dumb to be responsible with any information given? just a thought.
Click to expand...
That's how I feel. Tell the dude its still analog, its still illegal, then leave it at that.
 
My thoughts are, selling any mU agonist as RC is totally taboo (in a manner similar to illicit sexual novelty). They are MORE likely to target an entity offering, technically, otherwise completely legal mU opioid agonists, over someone selling blatantly illegal hallucinogens. Having mU agonists for sale (aside maybe for kratom) is such a non-starter, it might be funny if it wasn't so serious. It ranks up there with "meth", counterfeiting currency, and petiphilia. In fact (digressing a tad), such topics are so wound up with a life of their own, that it is almost impossible to have discourse on, for instance, child sexuality (yes, children have a sexual being, but it can't be discussed because there is a taboo bordering on the malignant). In the same way, no one wants to say the word "nigger" (except for blacks, that is. ) It's really sad that there are areas of discourse which can't even be broached. The truth suffers for that. Anyway, it would be interesting to know more about some of this chemistry: specifically relating to the electronic chemistry/reactivity of the moiety that naltrexone, and buprenorphine both share.
 
I feel the thread should stay open, because it is kind of important that the issue is raised and answered and anyone can add their two penn'orth.

rc opiates are IMHO a bad idea. and soliciting info and stuff on BL is an even worse idea.
 
Hardly any worse than MDPV or desoxypipradrol.

Actually, it's not difficult to think of numerous ways that they're much better than these stimulants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top