• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Shulgin never made a Dihkal for dissociatives. What has been done about this?

phew

phew

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
170
Location
New York City
As some of you know, Shulgin does not like dissociatives. He tried DXM once in the form of Romilar capsules, did not enjoy it, and never repeated the experience again.


That means we have no equivalent to Pihkal or Tihkal for dissociatives, and countless analogues are just waiting to be discovered. But who can possibly fill that man's shoes in the dissociative department?

Even if no one has attempted such a feat, what do we have in the dissociative department?

I know of a few PCP analogues, Mk-801, and the few listed on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative

But it's so scarce. We have very little Dissociative RCs and no one has done any serious experiments with them.

I wish we had a more potent DXM (100mg for a 4th plateau) or a safer PCP (neurotoxicity is not my thing). Would anyone here care to speculate on what might be possible with dissociatives? If you have some knowledge of psychopharmacology, please give some input. You don't have to be an expert, just have something interesting to say about this matter.
 
I suppose you're hinting more at "arylcyclohexylamines I have known and loved". Look up "arylcyclohexylamines", you'll find what you're looking for. As for the "no dissociative RCs" bit, I'm assuming it's a lack of demand. Ketamine is the only really fun dissociative, and even it isn't terribly popular. A kappa-opioid agonist with less D2 activity than salvia would be worth trying just to see if that receptor can take you anywhere fun.
 
Man i want to order Shugs new book when it is released! I forgot what the name of it was(or has that been disclosed yet, i forgot already)?
 
your description of a more potent dxm but safer pcp pretty much describes ketamine exactly. haha since when is ketamine the only fun dissociative? Opinions aren't the same as fact....

There are other newer dissociatives like 3-MeO-PCP and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone

but they are hard to come by, and dissociative experiences are not the most sought after...
 
mr.mackey said:
your description of a more potent dxm but safer pcp pretty much describes ketamine exactly. haha since when is ketamine the only fun dissociative? Opinions aren't the same as fact....

There are other newer dissociatives like 3-MeO-PCP and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone

but they are hard to come by, and dissociative experiences are not the most sought after...
Click to expand...

I said really fun. They're all kinda fun, but ketamine is the only standout -awesome- dissociative. By contrast, lots of psychedelics are really fun, and all entactogens are fun.
 
I think the reason why not many have appeared in the wider publicly accessible market is because they tend to be more dangerous, both physiologically and psychologically, than the types of drugs that are out there now (serotonergic psychedelics, stimulants, and empathogens). I think there is demand for novel dissociatives, but anyone who actually goes to the trouble of synthesizing and selling them is running the risk of mass psychotic reactions among their client base. Obviously this doesn't make much business or legal sense.

There are some exceptions like 4-MeO-PCP where the dose is really high so morons in the public at large can eyeball doses without too much danger, plus the chemical itself doesn't appear to be too dangerous. There may be some ketamine related chemicals that have a similar forgiving nature. The PCP-alikes are risky legally, psychologically, and physiologically, and the salvinorin A-alikes are risky psychologically and don't have much demand because they only appeal to courageous (or insane) hardcore explorers, who make up only a small section of the market.
 
Yeah this thread gets a "Hmmmm..." as well as an "LOL" from me, I'll tell you my personal brain-fried take on this after I read the thread. I think that you basically wouldn't have two braincells to rub together after a PHIKAL or TIHKAL style exploration of EVERY known PCP analogue. Atara hinted at this with the "arylcyclohexylamines I have known and loved" comment which I loved btw hehe. I mean even among the two aforementioned books, there are alot of reactions which are mixed toxic/dissociative/deleriant effects. That's within the two known families of hallucinogenic drugs, using logical and novel interpolations of known psychoactive molecules. To go out into the bizzare psychotic netherworld of mixed toxic-reactions that the more exotic members of this family of chemicals can offer is ghastly.

I sometimes think about the structure of psychoactive molecules as different keys that enable different possibilities of the mind. Tryptamines and phenethylamines seem to follow a structure shared by science to an extent that Shulgin and many others can grasp them. Now think of the few scientists that used (and abused) dissociatives in a similar way, like John Lilly and DM Turner... and you'll see a difference in the almost self-limiting way these individuals conducted their research. As well as the conclusions drawn from their experiences, which at least in Lilly's case were so rediculous as to isolate themselves from the scientific community. I don't know if there will ever be a AIHKHAL or DIHKAL in the conventional sense, but thanks to a number of intelligent forumites knowledge is being gathered which could lead to one.
 
I think it would be really reckless to start synthing disassociative compounds... You've got DXM, Ket, PCP, and to a lesser extent DPT plus 3-MeO-PCP... DXM and Ket are pretty safe as is DPT but PCP certainly isn't and I don't believe there has been enough 3-MeO usage to make a determination.

These are seriously dangerous chemicals... Synthing them would be totally irresponsible - and I am glad that the demand for them is so low that it doesn't make sense to synth them.
 
atara said:
I suppose you're hinting more at "arylcyclohexylamines I have known and loved". Look up "arylcyclohexylamines", you'll find what you're looking for. As for the "no dissociative RCs" bit, I'm assuming it's a lack of demand. Ketamine is the only really fun dissociative, and even it isn't terribly popular. A kappa-opioid agonist with less D2 activity than salvia would be worth trying just to see if that receptor can take you anywhere fun.
Click to expand...

There's no lack of demand. Dissociatives might not be as popular, but I wouldn't say they were unpopular.

Your last sentence is exactly what this is about. Finding safer alternatives to the dissociatives we already have.

atara said:
I said really fun. They're all kinda fun, but ketamine is the only standout -awesome- dissociative. By contrast, lots of psychedelics are really fun, and all entactogens are fun.
Click to expand...

Should fun be the only reason to use a drug?

General Patton said:
Yeah this thread gets a "Hmmmm..." as well as an "LOL" from me, I'll tell you my personal brain-fried take on this after I read the thread. I think that you basically wouldn't have two braincells to rub together after a PHIKAL or TIHKAL style exploration of EVERY known PCP analogue. Atara hinted at this with the "arylcyclohexylamines I have known and loved" comment which I loved btw hehe. I mean even among the two aforementioned books, there are alot of reactions which are mixed toxic/dissociative/deleriant effects. That's within the two known families of hallucinogenic drugs, using logical and novel interpolations of known psychoactive molecules. To go out into the bizzare psychotic netherworld of mixed toxic-reactions that the more exotic members of this family of chemicals can offer is ghastly.

I sometimes think about the structure of psychoactive molecules as different keys that enable different possibilities of the mind. Tryptamines and phenethylamines seem to follow a structure shared by science to an extent that Shulgin and many others can grasp them. Now think of the few scientists that used (and abused) dissociatives in a similar way, like John Lilly and DM Turner... and you'll see a difference in the almost self-limiting way these individuals conducted their research. As well as the conclusions drawn from their experiences, which at least in Lilly's case were so rediculous as to isolate themselves from the scientific community. I don't know if there will ever be a AIHKHAL or DIHKAL in the conventional sense, but thanks to a number of intelligent forumites knowledge is being gathered which could lead to one.
Click to expand...

But my point is that if someone like Shulgin invested the time and effort into studying dissociatives, we'd have some non-toxic equivalents to what we have now and some brand new dissociatives without much of the side effects.

Ask yourself, is it really possible that there will never be any safe dissociativess even with the infinite possibilities for new chemicals?

psood0nym said:
I think the reason why not many have appeared in the wider publicly accessible market is because they tend to be more dangerous, both physiologically and psychologically, than the types of drugs that are out there now (serotonergic psychedelics, stimulants, and empathogens). I think there is demand for novel dissociatives, but anyone who actually goes to the trouble of synthesizing and selling them is running the risk of mass psychotic reactions among their client base. Obviously this doesn't make much business or legal sense.

There are some exceptions like 4-MeO-PCP where the dose is really high so morons in the public at large can eyeball doses without too much danger, plus the chemical itself doesn't appear to be too dangerous. There may be some ketamine related chemicals that have a similar forgiving nature. The PCP-alikes are risky legally, psychologically, and physiologically, and the salvinorin A-alikes are risky psychologically and don't have much demand because they only appeal to courageous (or insane) hardcore explorers, who make up only a small section of the market.
Click to expand...

I can't believe how much dissociatives are maligned. Why? Responsible use with dissociatives is just as possible as responsible use with psychedelics.

When you say they tend to be more dangerous, we only have a handful of dissociatives compared to the HUNDREDS of psychedelics we have (and there are harmful psychedelics in this large group too). How do you know that there aren't any great dissociatives just waiting to be discovered?

I'm not talking about markets, I'm talking about a chemist or group of chemists experimenting with dissociatives to come up with never seen before structures and compounds much safer than what we have now.


MagickalKat777 said:
I think it would be really reckless to start synthing disassociative compounds... You've got DXM, Ket, PCP, and to a lesser extent DPT plus 3-MeO-PCP... DXM and Ket are pretty safe as is DPT but PCP certainly isn't and I don't believe there has been enough 3-MeO usage to make a determination.

These are seriously dangerous chemicals... Synthing them would be totally irresponsible - and I am glad that the demand for them is so low that it doesn't make sense to synth them.
Click to expand...

Wow. I don't even know what to say to this. There's no reason for this much fear.
 
When you've seen the shit that I have seen, from the usage of simple phenethylamines and tryptamines, and my own personal single experience with PCP... yeah there is definitely a reason to fear disassociatives.
 
MagickalKat777 said:
When you've seen the shit that I have seen, from the usage of simple phenethylamines and tryptamines, and my own personal single experience with PCP... yeah there is definitely a reason to fear disassociatives.
Click to expand...

I don't want it to seem like I"m attacking you or dismissing your claims. I'm sorry that you had to go through what seems to be a horrifying experience with PCP. You have the right to your opinion.

But please realize that some people do just fine with dissociatives and have no problem experimenting with them. I'm not saying that everyone should take PCP lightly, I'm just saying that you can't get in the habit of restricting what other people do because you personally had a bad experience.

I'm guessing you dosed a lot for a first time, which caused the bad trip you had.
 
It's probably possible to make safe novel dissociatives, but people have to work with existing structures if they want to maximize the chances of creating psychoactive compounds, and many of the existing chemicals are dangerous. Look at 3-MeO-PCP: two people out of less then 10 very experienced users who have taken it have ended up in the psyche ward (this is after mixing with other novel dissociatives like PCE). The fact that it's possible to take them systematically and at doses that are probably mostly safe doesn't mean it happens in practice. Many dissociatives also disinhibit behavior, so even in experienced users their powerful and largely unpredictable psychoactive effects can take people by surprise. So there's reason to believe that if someone like Shulgin took the time to investigate all these new compounds they'd end up in trouble (like Turner and Lilly) long before they completed synthesizing a diverse new line of compounds. It takes 10 or 15 years for a new drug to go through all the animal and human testing it takes to get FDA approval for sale as a prescription drug, and that's with massive financial backing and medical justification. Given all these facts, it's not surprising there's no dissociative analogy to TIHKAL.
 
Yes, I will concede the points you made right there. I'm sure starting with small doses could minimize this, though.

Edit: if only we had better ways of finding out whether a drug was safe or harmful
 
phew said:
I don't want it to seem like I"m attacking you or dismissing your claims. I'm sorry that you had to go through what seems to be a horrifying experience with PCP. You have the right to your opinion.

But please realize that some people do just fine with dissociatives and have no problem experimenting with them. I'm not saying that everyone should take PCP lightly, I'm just saying that you can't get in the habit of restricting what other people do because you personally had a bad experience.

I'm guessing you dosed a lot for a first time, which caused the bad trip you had.
Click to expand...

I never said I had a problem with disassociatives - I did DXM pretty much daily for the better part of a year and love ketamine whenever I can actually get my hands on it.

The PCP was mixed in some weed... All I remember was smoking the bowl, saying bye to my friend, then I briefly remember being at a park that was a good 45 minute walk away... then I remember being pinned down by my friend's boyfriend and then suddenly I'm home safe and sound.

I'm not interested in any analogs based off of PCP. Ketamine, maybe. I would definitely give Tiletamine a try. And wasn't 2C-T-21 said to be extremely disassociative as well? I can't remember which one it was but one of the 2C-T series was compared fairly consistently with disassociatives.

The problem that I have with these drugs is that while SOME people can handle them just fine, the vast majority of people that use them end up in trouble of some sort. There are some RCs that I would like to see stay around but if PCP analogs start flowing out like candy, I can guarantee you they will schedule ALL RCs in a blanket movement.

I have a feeling that the DEA is already looking at that since they made the Microgram Bulletins law enforcement only in January of this year.
 
MagickalKat777 said:
I never said I had a problem with disassociatives - I did DXM pretty much daily for the better part of a year and love ketamine whenever I can actually get my hands on it.

The PCP was mixed in some weed... All I remember was smoking the bowl, saying bye to my friend, then I briefly remember being at a park that was a good 45 minute walk away... then I remember being pinned down by my friend's boyfriend and then suddenly I'm home safe and sound.

I'm not interested in any analogs based off of PCP. Ketamine, maybe. I would definitely give Tiletamine a try. And wasn't 2C-T-21 said to be extremely disassociative as well? I can't remember which one it was but one of the 2C-T series was compared fairly consistently with disassociatives.

The problem that I have with these drugs is that while SOME people can handle them just fine, the vast majority of people that use them end up in trouble of some sort. There are some RCs that I would like to see stay around but if PCP analogs start flowing out like candy, I can guarantee you they will schedule ALL RCs in a blanket movement.

I have a feeling that the DEA is already looking at that since they made the Microgram Bulletins law enforcement only in January of this year.
Click to expand...


"Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it”

But. I'm afraid you are very right about the majority vs dissociatives. Everything about this situation is so sickening. :(

If it's any consolation, I've blacked out ONCE (just once) from DXM at around 1.4g. At first I thought you were just bashing dissociatives without reason, then I thought you were just in over your head and didn't understand them, now I see your position as is. You should have told me you were very experienced from the start. =D

Sorry for assuming so much.
 
Sorry I wasn't clearer about my reasoning ;)

I used to have at least 900mg of DXM every day for the better part of a year (even when I had to work) and when I was at home safe and sound, I would take it in a plateau sigma - 3 doses, about an hour apart - so trust me, I have some hardcore disassociative experience. It doesn't get much better than seeing an Egyptian goddess walk out of your wall in broad daylight. :D

And don't even get me started on K... I love some ketamine - and I hate snorting things.
 
I think you all will be pretty happy when you see this thread. :) http://bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=504286

MagickalKat777 said:
I can't remember which one it was but one of the 2C-T series was compared fairly consistently with disassociatives.
Click to expand...

I believe it's 2C-T-4 that you're thinking of. however, 2C-T-21 was dissociative in me at higher doses, and i've heard wind that 2C-T-8 (the 4-cyclopropylthio, i believe) is pretty dissociative too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top