Are some novel compounds too addictive, dangerous or exclusive to discuss?

[Rectify]

The world wide web has long focused on the free, open, rapid, and universal exchange of information and knowledge--especially regarding drugs, many of which are dangerous and addictive and taboo as well.

You might could put a stop to it at bluelight, but it will likely spring up elsewhere in time.

Progress can certainly be painful at times, but is progress really such a bad thing?

And what is so noble about secretively hoarding information? I don't agree with it, except in the case of super potent opioids and the like, but even then isn't more and better information dissemination complementary to the goals of harm reduction?

 

[Hammilton]

That's because you don't have much experience. Most of us who've been here long enough have seen conversations here quickly be turned into income for unscrupulous people.

It was great when we could talk about things and not worry about them appearing on the market, especially appearing on the market as other things.

How long after I talked about dimethocaine did it start getting sold? I don't think it was even six months before I was contacted by vendors looking for 'testimonial.'

Then it was JWH-018 being sold and our comments on it being used as selling points.

It's not just super potent stuff. It's potentially carcinogenic, it's highly toxic, it's misrepresented, it's impure.

All of these things are making open conversation more and more dangerous.

 

[hamhurricane]

i had the opportunity to have a private conversation with alexander shulgin and i asked him this very same question. i referred specifically to a sentence he wrote in the first part of pihkal, unfortunately i dont have book with me so i cant quote it exactly but he says something to the effect "this drug [Aleph-1] is the essence of power, it must not be made public, so that it cannot be destroyed" this of course goes against everything shulgin stands for, he is all about the dissemination of knowledge - no information is moral or immoral - the only immoral thing is to withhold information....but i digress...so i asked him "did you ever feel that way about any other compounds, did you ever encounter another chemical which you thought 'this must remain a secret!'" and he replied "absolutely not, i dont even remember saying that about Aleph!"

 

[nuke]

Well. I'll put in my two cents here.

I'm hopelessly an American so I'll always believe in free speech. If something you talked about ends up in the wrong hands and the wrong thing happens with it, I don't think it's necessarily your fault or your problem. MDPV originally came from someone mentioning the patent here (or so I'm told), but the fact of the matter is that this is generally publically available materially anyway and pretty much anyone can access most of this information through their local university if they so desire. I'm also a believer that patent laws in general have actually hurt rather than helped the pharmaceutical industry (which I think should've been publicly funded in the first place, moreso than the rest of the medical industry), but that's another ballgame.

The most amazing thing about the fact that these types of pharmacologically acting compounds ('recreational pharmaceuticals' as the euphemism, or 'drugs of abuse' as the dysphemism) is that because they're generally grey market, the research that goes into them here is public and not secretive in nature, unlike pretty much everything made in the pharmaceutical industry. Big pharma is a non-stop hoarder of information that's constantly in competition to produce the best profit for their CEOs and shareholders, which I feel like is antagonistic to the whole "aiding health" thing because it's all based upon money rather than a collaborative effort to solve the most pressing health problems. Money can be a powerful motivator, but mostly a motivator to produce things that make more money: useful things like pharmaceuticals that 'naturally lengthen eyelashes' and so forth. Here we have researchers/scientists/pseudoscientists/laymen all working towards drugs to find more effective ways to well, 'get high', and there's no monetary reward (for me at least, I think it's that way for most of you). It's all just a passion for psychopharmacy, and I think that's a great thing that shouldn't be inhibited.

I have a strong feeling that those dedicated to greed will meet their ends accordingly, eg Web Tryp.

 

[hamhurricane]

^^^
agreed! i wont deny that ADD and co. may influence the RC and "herbal" drugs market, but the evolution and sale of these chemicals is inevitable. all one can do is hope that safer and more enjoyable drugs will become available in the future - and to ensure that happens access to information is essential! if JWH-018 is flawed then why keep improvements secret? i fail to see any tragedy in MDPV or desoxypipradrol, perhaps they have caused addiction and hospitalizations, but had they remained secret it would certainly have not put an end to addiction or hospitalization. nichols feels no remorse for the deaths caused by 4-MTA or DOB-DFLY, nor should he.

the main concern here is a legal one, if said information hastens the scheduling of worthwhile compounds that certainly is a problem.

 

[Nagelfar]

...some compounds must stay secret. It's just due to the laborious effort of a very limited number of people who have taken the time and the monetary effort needed, to obtain (...synth) and assay some substances with a promising prospect. Even if those persons may not have invented said compounds, it was certianly their work and their courage to assay them. With what right is somebody allowed to take those efforts away and make some $$$ out of it (and that's what's happening sionce decades, the business accelerating each year it seems)? Harm can also be avoided as well, if those compounds don't get discussed in the first place at all!

These compounds (of this magnitude) in question then likely, we would have to be asking individuals in the lab to get this very information, who could only be part of the team responsible for obtaining this knowledge about them, to not come out and tell people on a public forum about such a chemical and what it can do....

Here we are talking about collegial solidarity, which should begin and end in the office/lab and not in a public website / discussion-forum... ... If it is on Wikipedia, it can be brought here, is what I am saying. It can be clarified and brought down to the basic tenets of what it does, and which is superior to which other in which manners.....

If you have to come out on one particular thread in a forum and say "will those who know please not say anything" if "you" (person asking others to stay mute) are not part of the collegiality and the group of academics in the field behind the assaying of a substance, that is pointless, like trying to have a private conversation in a Starbucks saying you don't believe certain people in politics shouldn't sell secrets to certain other nations.... If, however, you have the "in" then you private message those individuals responsible for the assaying of the particular substance which you happen to know is too strong; though hopefully you had an agreement with them as colleagues to not proliferate this information as public beforehand.

So by the time it comes here, it is a mute point to not ask individuals not to say anything, in one single forum in one single thread; will not get to everyone on the assaying team; it had to be in a memo or in a secret handshake among white-coats when they discovered this property; and shared this information among themselves that it then, obviously, should not come out to a website.... if it is known by individuals outside this circle, then this information is already free and public information, up to every single last individual as to whether they want to voice their knowledge of it or not, and it is like a dam breaking... there is an old saying; what two know only they alone may know; yet what three know the world knows....

When I ask to know which of a "phenyltropane" class of stimulants is the best for such & such; I means of the ones known; if someone with top secret information wants to leak that to me; well I certainly am not expecting that amount of insight I just want to know what is commonly known, but if someone with an "in" leaks it against the wants of others; there is an information breach and probably a loose end that should be cut off from involvement in any future lab teamwork. YET THAT IS CERTAINLY not an issue to be brought up by the time it comes to a public website level, as we are all anonymous faces with no right or jurisdiction or authority over what private firms or government labs have come up with; their responsibility to hide that and keep it to themselves ended a long ways from www.bluelight.ru

 

[chloral hydrate]

First you can't discuss syntheses... then you can't discuss novel compounds, what's next for bluelight? You can only discuss aspirin?

 

[Jamshyd]

Last time I started a thread on something like that, it was shat on and I was dismissed as a romantic and an elitist. (Needless to say, I totally agree with vektor and ham and murph)

*cough* *cough*

Just sayin'.

ie, do check this out

Here we can discuss there ethics of such things as highly dangerous or addictive chemical compounds.

See also: How human rats killed the "RC" market (a rant)

 

[Jamshyd]

First you can't discuss syntheses... then you can't discuss novel compounds, what's next for bluelight? You can only discuss aspirin?

BL is primarily a HARM REDUCTION website.

If you can show me which part of discussing novel analogues of an already addictive and toxic substance consists of harm reduction, I will concede.

 

[chloral hydrate]

Yeah I understand. I'm just saying there's lots of sites that discuss synthesis and new compounds which can easily be commercialized. Why so much attention with bluelight, like Hammilton said he posted something about dimethocaine and it became RC? I think you guys just notice it because this is where you hang out. There's lots of other sites people can try to look for new things to commercialize.

I think 99% the people here have absolutely no means to commercialize anything anyways. The vendors that search sites like these- well they're going to get their ideas elsewhere anyways.

 

[Jamshyd]

There may be other sites, sure, but I think you need to realize just how gigantic BL is, and how it is generally the first hit in a given google search. As such, what is said on BL often does have real-life consequences.

If the vendors get ideas from other sites, good for them. I'd be more than happy to know that I had nothing to do with the release of, say, some fentanyl analogue on the market.

 

[chloral hydrate]

If the vendors get ideas from other sites, good for them. I'd be more than happy to know that I had nothing to do with the release of, say, some fentanyl analogue on the market.

Well see now you're doing exactly what the government is. Trying to protect people from themselves.

I'm sure fentanyl RC would be very dangerous and without proper precautions it could get people killed. But you can't just eliminate it and cut down on people's freedoms (well you can but that's exactly what the government is doing).

Instead, do offer harm reduction- for example dosages on the fentanyl RC, proper ways to take it, etc. And as such it is ultimately information that should be used for harm reduction, not the lack thereof.

 

[Nagelfar]

Well see now you're doing exactly what the government is.

I think sites will on some level always reflect the sentiment of the government however the government governs. Regardless of where the server is locates the governmental sentiment will reflect the prime language of the main government of the nationality/country's prevalent language the site uses; here at bluelight that is English and so then reflects the governmental law view of British Isles, the United States, and their general approach to drug laws that those nations have. If in Spanish, the relation might be a bit different.

Instead, do offer harm reduction- for example dosages on the fentanyl RC, proper ways to take it, etc. And as such it is ultimately information that should be used for harm reduction, not the lack thereof.

I agree. Discussing a thread like "Stimulants of the future" and wondering what ones are more addictive, has all sorts of theoretical harm reduction purposes; do many of the average public out there want to try something that people are touting as "most addictive"? No. That is to me certainly a harm reduction strategy: to have it be known which are labeled as such.

Most drug users are users of cannabis, for the very fact that it is touted as "non-addictive" and generally believed to be without any kind of "come down" or "withdrawal"... This is what the general public believe.

[many drug users seem to go after pharmaceuticals over "street drugs" like tar heroin because it is to them clean and "safe", a newly created clandestine drug would likely not be used by many if in a liquid or powder state, albeit pressed MDMA tabs seem clean and official to many young kids unknowing that they are as unsafe as any powder, but I digress]

To know what the most addictive stimulant is of a certain class; has dissuasive value to it.... and is a harm reducing aspect in knowledge..

If, however, the demographic of the opposite mindset; "how most addictive must be best, etc etc." they/those-types likely have gone through addiction with what is available, of the worst sort of "drug" widely called such ("meth, heroin, cocaine") already being wise to the ways of an addiction and have gotten clean to know better, and again being harm reduction knowing so..... ...or alternately in the throes of an addiction and do not care. Well if the latter type, they worst case scenario merely switch the drug they use to this new one, which may be (and most likely is) to a drug of a better side effects profile (because of what my asking entailed: as my wording was in the original question that started this whole split-off thread, was: ...which shows most "promise" - meaning (hopefully and explained as such in the responses I was expecting), which has the most benign side effects profile with the best set of euphorigenic main effects (or sought after / used-for effects).

If a clandestine creator of said drug who discovered drug due to this very website is spotting out individuals to target -- then they must go by this same mindset the users have whether if that very user is directly using the information found here as an individual to find / sniff-out such substances for use themselves as individuals. The types of people looking for a "most addictive" would be the same minority and probably only benefit themselves by switching to a "future" (meaning superior) drug, if all such information was given, as most promising... even if the set of drugs was set by just that they were the most addictive in their class; the ones at the top of the list would be the ones with the benign side effect profile that both the creators (wanting return customers) or the individual user (caring for their health and body) would want to use...

 

[Jamshyd]

Well see now you're doing exactly what the government is. Trying to protect people from themselves.

ORLY?

Actually, I'm trying to protect myself from people's very stupid mistakes.

I'm sure fentanyl RC would be very dangerous and without proper precautions it could get people killed. But you can't just eliminate it and cut down on people's freedoms (well you can but that's exactly what the government is doing).

Yes, and...? BL has never been a democracy. As much as you may believe, BL is actually NOT a public place. It is privately owned. The owners have the right to dictate whatever is appropriate and whatever isn't. I am not trying to speak on behalf of them, but I'm just telling you that your liberty speech simply doesn't apply here.

Instead, do offer harm reduction- for example dosages on the fentanyl RC, proper ways to take it, etc. And as such it is ultimately information that should be used for harm reduction, not the lack thereof.

That's a totally different story than actually dreaming up new fentanyl analogues. Sure, if one is out, you can do whatever you can to reduce harm. But thinking up new ones hardly constitutes as so.

The bottom line is this: If you want to practise your freedom of speech or whatever ideal you're going for here, you ought to do it on your own site. After all, you ARE free to make your own site.

 

[Jamshyd]

I think sites will on some level always reflect the sentiment of the government however the government governs. Regardless of where the server is locates the governmental sentiment will reflect the prime language of the main government of the nationality/country's prevalent language the site uses; here at bluelight that is English and so then reflects the governmental law view of British Isles, the United States, and their general approach to drug laws that those nations have. If in Spanish, the relation might be a bit different.

LOL, that's cute.

I can't speak for all of BL, but FYI, I'm Palestinian.

 

[Rectify]

Jamshyd,

If talking about novel compounds were restricted on bluelight, then you would not be allowed to talk about 3-MeO-PCP for example, and psychedelic drug progress would be impeded.

 

[dread]

it is ultimately information that should be used for harm reduction, not the lack thereof.

qft

 

[Nagelfar]

but FYI, I'm Palestinian.

And this 'for my information' doesn't affect my thought of there being a general value judgment that comes out of the mean number of native language speaking/writing. That as I figured should confirm that they (as a conglomerate, or amalgamated entity) may be swayed toward the sentiment of the positive law as representative of cultural norms that holds sway in (this case) anglophone society.

The moderators themselves hold a general natural law (spirit of the law) they adhere to, to generally govern the conduct to the interests of those to whom the site belongs. They do so in their interests; and their interests for one part coincide with keeping their website working in that some legality doesn't infringe from outside or within their jurisdiction that they have to answer to in the interest of self-preservation; the many who congregate here to do with certain legal pretenses in mind; how closely for far those fall from the owners/runners of the forum is dictated by certain assumptions that go in with the above criteria. Those along with the words laid out in the terms and conditions of course, but I mean the unspoken norms we follow when things are grey areas.

 

[seep]

The most amazing thing about the fact that these types of pharmacologically acting compounds ('recreational pharmaceuticals' as the euphemism, or 'drugs of abuse' as the dysphemism) is that because they're generally grey market, the research that goes into them here is public and not secretive in nature . . . Here we have researchers/scientists/pseudoscientists/laymen all working towards drugs to find more effective ways to well, 'get high', and there's no monetary reward (for me at least, I think it's that way for most of you). It's all just a passion for psychopharmacy, and I think that's a great thing that shouldn't be inhibited.

Please don't forget (undergraduate) students, like myself, who look to the discussions held herein as educational tools of enormous value. I can't get too much qualitative information from my professors or employers about the psychoactivity of any given compound. But here, I can sit and watch a simulacrum of the R&D process: a simulacrum that, I can only conclude, mimics the R&D processes that are occulted from the public.

Maybe I'm the exception, but I feel little compulsion to try compounds mentioned here that I had not previously heard of. At some point, understanding the drug becomes more interesting than using it, and as a result my drug use has decreased dramatically in the year I've been lurking here. The prospect of being able to participate in R&D (gray or white) in the near future (when my education is sufficient) is intoxicating in itself.

The three princes of Serendip, Balakrama, Vijayo, and Rajahsigha,
as they traveled...were always making discoveries, by accident
and sagacity, of things they were not in quest of."

Horace Walpole

 

[MurphyClox]

I just typed a longer text about this in another forum (where we have a similar discussion going on at the moment). In short:

I (and others as well, like Vecktor) get repeatedly accused of promoting 'elitism' by requesting to keep some details secret. First - I totally disagree about that nonsensical 'elitism'-theme.
I rather came to the point that folks are just LAZY. Instead of doing some own research, you like to get the answers presented without doing something for it. Something exotically, like reading journal articles. You rather expect us to yell out loudly what we just discovered. Why, I ask you. WHY? What for? You like to get spoon-fed but we don't like to hold the spoon.
IIRC, Nagelfar used the argument that no information is secret, because all was published in patents and peer-review-journals. And the fellow is absolutely right! I haven't seen a single desirable compound where there's no literature available. So why don't you just read a bit yourself? (not Nagelfar personally, of course, I mean all those who demand open, unrestricted discussion) Why do you ask OTHERS to do your work?
To get back to where this thread started: I'm sure that you will find out which tropanes are nice and which are not by simply collecting all available literature, finding out what exactly makes a stimulant desirable and then searching for the right candidates. If this is too laborious for you people - well, then you simply do not deserve the info.

I fear that this opinion is not very famous here.

- Murphy