• 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

propylhexedrine question

phx seems to be a great deal more jittery than the classical stimulant mainstays, indicating greater cardiotoxicity. Also, if it agonizes 5ht2b (which it might), it would exert fenfluramine type cardiotoxicity.

ebolA
 
Furyl-propanamine, thienyl-propanamine, and pyrrolyl-propanamine would be worthwile to try. Maybe you could even develop some psychedelic analogues from those.
 
All of the fatalities reported in case reports for the past couple of decades are probably a good indicator of the toxicity of the compound.
 
All of the fatalities reported in case reports for the past couple of decades are probably a good indicator of the toxicity of the compound.
Click to expand...

In my lit review, it seemed that all of the fatalities were from IV users. It seems to me like common sense that one should not shoot a shoddy extraction containing oil of menthol and lavender.

I would imagine that the toxicity carried by propylhexedrine is a problem similar to ephedrine's: because these medications carry a higher ratio of peripheral stimulation to perceived high, people stubbornly push such medications to dangerous levels, chasing a strong amphetamine-type experience.

ebola
 
nuke said:
All of the fatalities reported in case reports for the past couple of decades are probably a good indicator of the toxicity of the compound.
Click to expand...

yeah, most people who do the extraction only purify it one time when it should be done 5-6 times.. And also, the main reports are of people who have IV'ed it, and amphetamine kills a lot of people as a primary source of death a year dude.
 
yes, but just looking at reported deaths is pointless. Amphetamine is probably a million times more popular as a drug of abuse, and there are probably a million times more deaths from AMP than PHX, but the ratio is almost certainly much worse when looking at PHX.
 
No one said amphetamine was not toxic, however, the therapeutic ratios of the two drugs make amphetamine out to be safer in mice.
 
nuke said:
No one said amphetamine was not toxic, however, the therapeutic ratios of the two drugs make amphetamine out to be safer in mice.
Click to expand...

True. The thing with PHX is that such a high dose is necessary that it's hard to get an accurate dose (and I use an extracted form, but in no way is my dosage very accurate). Maybe if something were added it to it that it could make the dosing more accurate and maybe require a lower dosage?
 
ebola? said:
Ummm...here, you want a different drug. :)
Click to expand...

Heh, well true. But I mean, people innovate on shit everyday? With steroids when they are methylated to make them more potent, and methamphetamine is essentially a methylated version of amphetamine, no? So why couldn't something along those lines be done to a less potent drug to make it require a smaller dosage?
 
You can. Propylhexedrine is the hexahydro analogue of meth. Adding another methyl group to the nitrogen will make it either entirely inactive or much less potent.

What else can you do to it to make a more potent drug? There's not much. It's soluble enough- that's all adding a methyl group helps with (not entirely true, I know) really.
I like the keto idea. Perhaps 2,5-dioxo-hexylmethamphetamine would be a good idea.
 
I bet N,a-dimethyl - cyclohexa[3,4]diene-ethylamine (propylhexedrine but with a double bond between position 3 and position 4 in the ring) would be one hell of a fun stimulant. Since the ring would be more rigid, it would be more potent at CNS catecholamine release than propylhexedrine is, and likely less strongly peripherally adrenergic... simply because it bears an even closer resemblance to methamphetamine.

First we've gotta keep in mind that the shit in the inhalers is racemic propylhexedrine. Enatiopure d-propylhexedrine would probably be less harsh than Benzedrex on the PNS because the l-propylhexedrine is undoubtedly adding significant adrenergic PNS activity without adding appreciable CNS activity. D-propylhexedrine would likely feel cleaner than the racemic found in Benzedrex inhalers and would be about 2x more potent, but still far short of d-methamphetamine in potency.

d-N,a-dimethyl - cyclohexa[3,4]diene-ethylamine ... now this would would probably be pretty kickass. I bet it could beat racemic amphetamine and even give enatiopure d-amphetamine a run for its money. If I had to guess, I'd guess that 30 mg d-propylhexedrine = 8.5 mg d-methamphetamine = 15 mg N,a-dimethyl - cyclohexa[3,4]diene-ethylamine ... the latter being our never tasted by humans compound; propyl but with a double bond at pos 3,4 on the ring.

I think it's possible that 3,4-methylenedioxy - N,a-dimethyl - cyclohexa[3,4]diene-ethylamine --

[that name is almost def TOTALLY wrong by IUPAC conventions most likely, but I think it conveys what I mean just fine]

-- could possibly have entactogenic and empathogenic activity similar to MDMA but perhaps less potent.

This molecule is basically propylhexedrine but with the bond between positions 3 and 4 on the ring changed from a single bond to a double bond. The lone two hydrogens that are left sticking off one on position 3 and one on position 4 are replaced with the methylenedioxy bridge between position 3 and 4 like in MDMA.

The double bond increases rigidity of the molecule in this region of the molecule, and by extension, increases the locking in of the methylenedioxy bridge into one position, which seems necessary for relatively strong 5-HT releasing activity without extreme toxicity to 5-HT like p-chloro-amphetamine has.

Without the double bond, you'd have to keep in mind that introducing a MD bridge would be a another chiral center (right? ... cuz there's two hydrogens to each carbon at the saturated ring on propylhex... so the MD bridge could be replacing the two H molecules sticking towards the same direction as the a-methyl in 3D space or the MD bridge could replace the two H molecules facing away / in the other direction from the a-methyl in 3D space. I seriously doubt either isomer would be active, nor would, by extension, a racemic mixture of this compound.

But with a double bond at pos 3,4 the situation is more similar to methamphetamine being subbed with an MD bridge at 3,4. It's still not as planar and rigid as MDMA's ring region would be, but it's closer (more rigid and planar) than the propyl racemic mixture by far.

I really think the compound 3,4-methylenedioxy - N,a-dimethyl - cyclohexa[3,4]diene-ethylamine probably has activity. Whether you just end up with just another stimulant like propylhexedrine and methamphetamine or an MDMA like empathogen/entactogen I can't say for sure.

However, some of the sensations during the propylhexedrine experience suggest significant 5-HT efflux compared to amphetamine -- 5-HT efflux more akin to methamphetamine.

An MD bridge at 3,4 on propyl would muck up everything by having two new isomers and both isomers having the MD bridge jut out in a way that probably destroys activity.

However 3,4-methylenedioxy - N,a-dimethyl - cyclohexa[3,4]diene-ethylamine is more rigid and planar at 3,4 and that MD bridge creates no chiral center because the double bond leaves each carbon 3 and 4 to only make one bond like in the aromatic ring. The MD bridge also wouldn't jut out way to the side like the cyclohexane ring propyl analog. While not as nice and planar as MDMAs ring area, it's a great improvement.

And I was just thinking since propylhexedrine already seems to cause more 5-HT efflux based on subjective feelings under its influence, this 3,4-methylenedioxy - N,a-dimethyl - cyclohexa[3,4]diene-ethylamine analog without the conformation issues could be a decent MDxx like entactogen and empathogen.
 
The partly unsaturated variants were suggested before (I think it was by Johanneschimpo) but the general notion was that they presumably show more toxicity than that they gain activity...

Also, the calculation (in bold) above is pointless. There's no easy, viable synthetic route to selectively build a delta3-double bond in the ring (as it suggests to me).

- Murphy
 
hmmm

what is is it like ephedrine by itself. so u saying its kinda like a backbone like amphetamine. bit brain dead could it be the next legal RC like piperazines?
Anyone used it or know much about it?
where can i find out more info?
 
Last edited:
Ephedrine is old, its what all the amphetamines are based on. That and psuedo.

You can get it from natural sources like Sida Cordifolia, or in higher concentrations in Ma Huang stems. A small pinch of Ma Huang in tea is a potent stimulant.
 
Would be great to know more about propyl's cardiotoxicity in comparison to other stimulants, but the info is just not out there. All the deaths seem to have occurred in IV users, while other negative trip reports usually come from people who swallowed one to three cottons. What about doses of 25-75 mg. orally without the cotton?
 
Ephedrine is a 3rd grade stimulant. It has way more side-effects than central stimulant effects, it has severe health risks, it's not very euphoric, etc. etc.

And amphetamines aren't really "based on" ephedrine per se.

Ephedrine is beta-hydroxy methamphetamine. So meth can (and is) easily created by removing that hydroxy group from ephedrine. But that's where the similarity ends.
 
i remember the thread i made about messing around with propylhexedrine's structure.

unfortunately the conclusion was that if synthesis of "3,4-methylenedioxypropylhexedrine" was to be attempted, the result would be something inactive, chemicaly unstable, or too adrengic.

it does sound like a good idea but propylhexedrine unlike most other empathogens similar in effect to MDMA propylhexedrine isn't an amphetamine or even a phenethylamine, which pretty much means making active propylhexedrine analogues is a wild goose chase.

trust me, i've had the idea as well...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top