-
N&PD Moderators: Skorpio
Am-694 and smoking blends WARNING
- Thread starter vecktor
- Start date
Delsyd
Bluelight Crew
yep
so far all we know is that its no good.
But which blends have it?
where did you get this info?
any major dude
Bluelight Crew
any more info on this yet? I have been thinking about purchasing some as several JWH's are about to become illegal in my state. I'm also liking the lack of a napthyl group, but i'm a touch worried about the fluoroalkyls mentioned in this thread.I got some of this the other day. It hasn't killed me yet.
Feels like JWH-250, only much more potent (more potent than JWH-018 or CP-55,940). No sideffects unexpected for a synthetic cannabinoid, but definitely not as qualitatively pleasant as CP-55,940. I'll comment more when i get my blend with it made, as i'm lousy at vaping stuff, and i think that really reduces my enjoyment of synthetics at times.
Xtc <3
Bluelighter
A popular vendor has just started selling this.
Sounds disastrous 8)
What doses were you taking?
xoqqiy axlotao3al
Bluelighter
you are free to do as you like, but i'm not at all sure why this seems like an appropriate response here on a board dedicated to harm reduction. nothing in this thread suggests this is a good idea. the kinds of toxins we are typically talking about may or may not have immediate effects; some may be carcinogenic over 10, 20 or more years. Why would anyone want to risk that, esp. for something as ubiquitous as a CB agonist?
Low doses (lower than CP-55,940). 1mg or less would be my estimate. As i said, it's very potent.
Re health:
There is no suggestion that AM-694 would be carcinogenic.
It is highly likely that JWH-018/73/81/200 and WIN-55,212-2 ARE carcinogenic, and the closely related JWH-015 was shown to cause cancer in animals. Since the first metabolic step is N-dealkylation, JWH-018/73/200 would have the same primary metabolite, and so it's likely that they would be just as carcinogenic.
We've described above how AM-694 is NOT metabolized into floroacetate.
In fact, part of the appeal of AM-694, for me, is that it is probably safer than the napthoylindole cannabinoids....
With the floroacetate thing cleared up, what part of the molecule are we so scared of? It looks friendlier than some of the others....
At least with AM-694, we're talking toxicity (which we'll find out about within weeks to months of people using it), as opposed to a carcinogenic substance, where the risks won't be made apparent for years.
You say that cannabinoids are ubiquitous... I disagree:
There are the napthoylindoles, which everyone's gotten real good at pretending are safe in spite of evidence.
JWH-250.... which you have to smoke a ton of it to get a decent buzz (and it's always better to put small amounts of a drug into your body than large amounts, all other things constant)
How about CP-47,497? That's potent, clearly safe... and feels like shitty mids rather than good weed, and is not available in personal use quantities anyway, only bulk for making blends.
CP-55,940 is great, and clearly safe, but it's hard to find, and very expensive when you do find it, and it lasts a long time, which may make it inconvenient for some. Also, tolerance builds particularly fast to it.
fastandbulbous
Bluelight Crew
If it's an even number of carbon atoms, it ends up as fluoroacetate, if it's an odd number it ends up as fluoropropionate. Fluoroacetate inhibits a stage of the citric acid cycle by substituting for either acetic or glycolic acid (hey it was a long time ago that I did my biochem degree), but fluoropropionic acid simnply will not fit in anywhhere in the cycle.
Incidentally, some marsupials, such as rock wallabies, are impervious to the effect of fluroacetate as some of the vegetation they eat contains it (natural selection in action) so wallabies could smoke the mixture - 'no worries mate'!
Unfortunately we do not have a rock wallabie's constitution
/navarone/
Bluelighter
F&B, wasn't it you who told me few months back that non aromatic halides where carcinogenic since they tend to bind to nitrogen bases in the DNA?
If so, why da hell isn't anybody freaking out? Are fluoride's an exception?
Yes. It takes a heroic amount of effort to pry a flourine off a carbon, while the other aliphatic halocarbons will more readilly react with stuff.
any major dude
Bluelight Crew
I was wondering if those were correct as well. Don't have access to the Rouse & Horti paper it comes from. Anyone had the chance to pick over their methodology?
fastandbulbous
Bluelight Crew
TheAzo beat me to it. Flourides are no threat to DNA, but as you head towards iodine the threat increases considerably.
When it comes down to it though, everything will give you cancer in the end!I'm going to have to retract my earlier statements about potency - on more rigorously controlled trials, it seems that the potency is comparable to or a little lower than CP-55,940.
I think someone dropped a decimal on the binding affinity of this one.
/navarone/
Bluelighter
TheAzo beat me to it. Flourides are no threat to DNA, but as you head towards iodine the threat increases considerably.
When it comes down to it though, everything will give you cancer in the end!
So my forsaken idea of 1,3 difluoroindanyl-7-propanyl-2-amine is rather licit in the end?
licit is the wrong term...
That molecule might not be, but if it's active, it'd give a facinating look at the structure of the relevant receptors, because you'd have 4 isomers (trans and cis, and the two enantiomers of each)....
fastandbulbous
Bluelight Crew
You mean dropped a clanger
