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

[pofacedhoe]

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

this is the exact same arguement as to why bluelight does not allow sourcing-if you cant work it out for yourself you dont deserve to know (because your stupidity will become an issue for everyone at some point)

 

[Jamshyd]

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.

Read the thread title. It says SOME novel compounds. And Vecktor explains very well which and why.

Nagelfar: Umm, yes?

I honestly am not sure what to respond to your pretty convoluted argument, because it seems you kinda lost track of what you're talking about. Try posting sober.

 

[Quanta]

If the information is already out there then by all means it should be discussed in terms of harm reduction but in general I think the answer to the posted question is yes. Given the anonymity of a public website and not knowing who your audience is, it is an obligation to not discuss some compounds or topics - it is a judgement call and it is not elitist. Some compounds are flat out dangerous and there is a price of admission which is knowledge and experience that nearly anyone can attain with the proper dedication. What's crazy is to consider that it takes 7-10 years to develop a proven "safe" drug and the majority of that time is spent on toxicology yet in the unscrupulous RC world a published potent receptor interaction, a serendipitous analog discovery, or a post on a website is taken as a green light for get high party time and money making with no second thought - can be a recipe for disaster as we have seen before.

 

[mad_scientist]

All compounds which are mentioned in the public domain scientific and patent literature, and have a propensity for abuse, will eventually be explored as recreational drugs.

Not discussing them may delay this, but only for years at most, because government policy of banning every new one that comes along will ensure that the whole pool of candidate compounds will be cycled through sooner or later.

Of course if the compounds you are discussing are new chemical entities that are not in the public domain, then it should be obvious that members-only areas of private forums (i.e. not crawled by googlebots) are the more appropriate venue.

If you want to keep private information private, then discuss it privately. Public information is already public and the consequences which arise from its existence will happen sooner or later regardless. Compounds will be banned on the grounds they are too dangerous for public consumption. Vendors will be imprisoned for selling unsafe products that kill people.

Ultimately the governments will realise that regulation will result in better public health outcomes than prohibition, and a few of the safer compounds will be legalised again and sold by big pharma like regular pharmaceuticals. How long this process takes to unfold remains to be seen.

 

[nuke]

It's pretty much whenever someone has the balls and money to propose an OTC recreational drug and run it through clinical trials and then try to get it through the FDA. It will probably be a legal battle of epic proportions in terms of both time and finances.

In the end, though, there's too much money to be made and too much demand to be satisfied. Given the vast majority of Americans use stimulants everyday (caffeine), a better stimulant could be one of the greatest cash cows to every come into existence.

 

[chloral hydrate]

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.

Yes, of course the Bluelight owners and staff and the mods kissing up to them can be very strict about any rules they want. But I thought this thread was asking for the opinions of the members and their discussions, not an admin discussion on how to keep Bluelight free from legal issues. I don't have a disagreement with the way things are going now, but what you are talking about is the prospect of limiting certain discussions which currently exist.

I do find it rude when someone asks a question about (hypothetical example) some phenyltropane stimulants out of curiosity, and vecktor tells them he doesn't condone anyone discussing it because someone might get the idea to make an RC. Please! Look at the wikipedia template for stimulants and you'll already find dozens of non-anologue potential RC stimulants- BTQ, amfonelic acid, etc. There's no point trying to hide anything.

 

[Jamshyd]

Yes, of course the Bluelight owners and staff and the mods kissing up to them can be very strict about any rules they want. But I thought this thread was asking for the opinions of the members and their discussions, not an admin discussion on how to keep Bluelight free from legal issues. I don't have a disagreement with the way things are going now, but what you are talking about is the prospect of limiting certain discussions which currently exist.

I do find it rude when someone asks a question about (hypothetical example) some phenyltropane stimulants out of curiosity, and vecktor tells them he doesn't condone anyone discussing it because someone might get the idea to make an RC. Please! Look at the wikipedia template for stimulants and you'll already find dozens of non-anologue potential RC stimulants- BTQ, amfonelic acid, etc. There's no point trying to hide anything.

You've just repeated yourself for the 3rd time, so I guess I'm just going to repeat myself a 3rd time.

YES we ARE discussing the prospect of limiting discussion. Like I told you, BL is primarily a harm-reduction site, and dreaming up new compounds out of addictive and/or toxic ones is not harm reduction. For those who DO have the right education and maturity to discuss these issues, there is always pubmed, and then there are secret (Non-BL) forums, PM, and email correspondence. We simply do not NEED to be having these discussions on BL.

Also allow me to remind you that the whole Advanced Drug Discussion is one of the newer forums in BL. Before its existence, there weren't really that many places where you can discuss theoretical drugs. That said, like all other drug forums on BL, harm reduction overrides any other purpose.

And just as you can't randomly walk into someone's house and decide you want to paint their walls yellow, you can't go to a private website and start ranting about it limiting your free speech or whatever. It isn't called sucking up to the admin, it is called common courtesy and minding your manners.

Btw, took you a while to pull out the mod ad-hom card. I actually stepped down as a mod a while ago ever since becoming busier IRL, but my title remains until we find suitable replacements.

 

[Nagelfar]

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

I think people like to talk to people, and bring it into a discussion, some, it doesn't mean they are stupid or less intelligent, do not understand things when posed in the prose of chemical academic literature. This is why classrooms with professors exist: to communicate things as if they were talking in a common manner, and bring one up to the often convoluted terminology on a case by case basis explaining it to them.... That some expect a kind of camaraderie where those who share a similar interest will talk to them in a tone that is an every day tone, well, they expect to learn things from one another. To suppose one is at all times a "leech" and that another is at all times a teacher is a sad view to take; many times we dispense knowledge that one who could have at no time taught us anything will have learned enough to go out, track something down, and come back; able to pose it in a way where we learn something from them... This is the kind of community I'd like to see, a reciprocal one where good faith is assumed in being able to explain things and voice opinions... It is up to the individual at all times whether they should keep something from someone or not, and I appreciate that, but it's not a broad issue as this thread has made it to be.

Nagelfar: Umm, yes?

I honestly am not sure what to respond to your pretty convoluted argument, because it seems you kinda lost track of what you're talking about. Try posting sober.

I am and have been sober, no need to ad hominem takes. Maybe it was your original response that tried to direct out some flaw, as I saw it, in my own quite personal opinion; which was nothing more than an attempt to agree with the status quo of the moderators and not alienate their position or that of any other trying to maintain integrity here. I suppose the sentiment I divulged isn't of the expertise required or even expected for the type of discussion or knowledge here though, which is thinking on the terms of more of a chemists, left-brain thinking environment. Where my argument, it stemmed from a more Kantian philosophic legalism.

 

[Rectify]

Jamshyd,

Yes, and you are free to start your own website devoted to debating the ongoing Arab Israeli conflict if you wish.

Just b/c you don't contribute to new drug discussions doesn't mean it's a good idea to ban others from doing so, but do as you will. After all, you're still a moderator.

 

[Jamshyd]

^ Wat?

When did the Arab-Israeli conflict come into this? I rarely even post about the issue, because I couldn't give a flying rat's ass.

And assuming I did talk about it as obsessively as stim-heads talk about new stims in this forum, how does a discussion of mid-eastern politics have anything to do with anything that we're talking about here? I mean, it doesn't even work as an analogy.

And I DO contribute to new drug discussion.

Your "response" is, in fact, completely irrelevant to anything we have discussed in this thread.

Again, more brilliant nonsense. Maybe you should try posting sober sometime, too.

 

[Rectify]

I don't see how prohibiting the discussion of "too addictive, dangerous, or exclusive compounds" makes bluelight a better place, but I'm not a moderator.

And I say all this while being stone cold sober unless you count coffee.

 

[vecktor]

My opinions are my own and probably do not reflect the views of the bluelight administration.

At no point has there been any suggestion of banning any discussion, all I suggested is that those with the know how may consider the consequences of publically posting information on substances likely to end up in RC's or legal highs. simply those who know about the synthesis and bioassay of novel substances should think about the wisdom of posting it here.

We have already seen a certain (now defunct) UK vendor picking up threads from here with synthetic targets, I don't think it wise to facilitate the credit card-chinese synthesis type vendors because they are irresponsable and dangerous.

 

[seusemgoose]

After being a lurker of the BL advanced forums for at least a year just to see what everyone wanted on the RC market and what not I joined just to say this...

If you feel you're responsible enough to take powerful drugs, then take the responsibility to learn some basic chemistry.

If you do that, you can figure out what good analogues would be easily off the top of your head. If you go a little further, you can figure out how to synthesize them and if you go further still you can even predict the efficacy of your own personal designer drugs. Its not rocket science.

I believe thats the biggest problem with most drugs users. They only consume and never put anything back in except for a few. I believe if you want to smoke shrub, grow shrub. Just my two cents though, and also its kind of funny that so many people want to know where all the new stims are when they've probably got the biggest potential as far as quantity go.

EDIT: and THATS harm reduction. I have a feeling if all those speedfreaks cooked their own crsytal they wouldn't want to be smoking it after they see the synthesis bit by bit. Knowledge is power brothers

 

[ebola?]

My opinion is that these chemical distributors will engage in the wanton marketing of dodgy substituted analogues of known recreational drugs regardless of whether they're brought up here or not; information appears to seep around cracks whenever we attempt to dam it up. So discussion here might, at best, steer some distributors away from synthesizing certain things for fear of garnering attention from law enforcement following customers' health problems. At worst, I can see the simultaneous inspiration of new, more dangerous drugs for sale on the market, but concomitant with information about how they might be more dangerous.

ebola

 

[hugo24]

It's pretty much whenever someone has the balls and money to propose an OTC recreational drug and run it through clinical trials and then try to get it through the FDA. It will probably be a legal battle of epic proportions in terms of both time and finances.

Really,I thought this through with 3-MeO-PCP! The medical benefit would be tremendous,I have not one single doubt.

But while I know I have maybe the hardest head of all humans around me,I'm still a realist and pragmatist (well,all I would need is more money,my head can beat all walls,you just have to try harder %)

Realism is I believe also vecktors main motivation.We just know how it goes in this fucking greedy degraded world right now and every second a new sucker is born.

(or vecktor is working for the cocaine mafia fearing synthetic competition sorry couldn't resist).But House'ian style rant off now.

But then,keeping a secret in the internet is an oxymoron.And fighting the course of things futile says Sisyphus and Kassandra.And Fentanyls the next logical step,and Fentanyls the best reason for the gubbermint to start the final op webRC ...

 

[Snowy]

BL is primarily a HARM REDUCTION website.

What do you think is harm?
And how does BL reduce it?

PS: Please leave out this "we are talking about the dangers of ... spreading awareness ... happiness".

 

[Jamshyd]

^ I have little time to waste on semantics, if that's what you want to discuss, go to someone else.

"Harm Reduction" is a noun that describes a certain method of social action, not a metaphysical conundrum.

If you want to see examples of it, go your your local needle exchange if you're lucky enough to live in a place that allows it. Or go to an AIDS clinic where they give out free condoms.

Either way, BL's philosophy on HR is pretty clear and as a condition of signing up here you should have read it.

 

[Snowy]

^ I have little time to waste on semantics, if that's what you want to discuss, go to someone else.

"Harm Reduction" is a noun that describes a certain method of social action, not a metaphysical conundrum.

Sure, then everything seems to be pretty clear to you, right?

If you want to see examples of it, go your your local needle exchange if you're lucky enough to live in a place that allows it. Or go to an AIDS clinic where they give out free condoms.

I understand. You see drugs in general as something like aids or heroin in a poor social millieu.
Don't you think that's very dull?
Your analogy leaves only few other interpretations over.

You explicitly ignore the potential of drugs and personal freedom.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... isn't that a personal choice? Or do think to know what's right for others?

 

[Hammilton]

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.

I'll take the points in reverse order. 99% of the people here have the means to commercialize this stuff. It doesn't take skill. All it takes is rudimentary knowledge and the ability to come up with the cash for a custom synth. Neither should be beyond the ability of 99% of the members here.

More and more, we're 'hanging out' elsewhere. Bluelight, however, is the largest and seemingly most popular of the sites. Another forum has discussion of a more advanced nature, and synthesis talk, but it's at least 100x smaller, if not 1000x.

The rest of the related sites, with a few exceptions have "other drugs"- level discussion and don't turn out much discussion of novel compounds, or are even smaller and less focused.

Bluelight is definitely the major source for inspiration it seems.

edit: probably best not to mention that. - nuke

 

[Hammilton]

We have already seen a certain (now defunct) UK vendor picking up threads from here with synthetic targets, I don't think it wise to facilitate the credit card-chinese synthesis type vendors because they are irresponsable and dangerous.

Right, and that's just one example. I know the first people to start with dimethocaine got the idea from here.

Same with JWH-018. At least as an RC. I'm not sure about the whole Spice thing.

I'm willing to bet that o-desmethyltramadol was also learned about from here.

The only RC I'm aware of that wasn't definitely taken from here (aside from the TiHKAl and PiHKAL drugs) seems to have been phenazepam, and that's just lake of evidence. I would definitely be surprised to learn that it wasn't learned of from here.

Does anyone know about the development of desoxypipradrol or MDPV? Besides o-DMeTramadol and mephedrone, these are the sorts of things that scare me being sold, especially in pseudo-herbal products. Products nearly as potent as meth, or even more so, that are longer lasting, are a recipe for disaster. Weird thing is that they're not even non-analogues.