• 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 |

2c-b fly and the future of research chemicals

phens with the hydroxy/methoxybenzyl at the amine do not seem to work so well with alkyl substitutions in the 4-position...

can you back that up? as far as im concerned they havnt even been made... do you have some random nichols paper i havnt seen?
 
Off-topic:
In what ways did you find it to differ from 2c-b?
Some of the available trip reports claim it to be very similar except in terms of duration. . .

I found them to be quite dissimilar. 2C-B-fly had very little visual activity but it was tremendously smoother and integrated into my consciousness much more. It produced a sublime euphoria and loving energy that seemed to align my energy in a very good direction, and that alignment lasted for days, perhaps more than a week. I felt none of that psychedelic self-consciousness. It reminded me of a much gentler and more intellectual MDMA-like state, with none of the forceable manic energy that MDMA can produce, that "must do everything now before it wears off" feeling. Not to mention the total lack of a crash for days afterwards... in fact, as I mentioned, I felt better than normal for about a week.

Really great stuff, kind of subtle but gorgeous.
 
On the other hand 2c-b-fly had a ton of visual activity for me and was more than twice as potent as 2c-b. I think the reason they were never more extensively produced was their variability in effect.
 
That and difficulty/cost in synthing it. or at least that's what I was led to believe. The cost to obtain it was prohibitive, and quite a few people wanted it, so I assume it would have been produced otherwise.
 
can you back that up? as far as im concerned they havnt even been made... do you have some random nichols paper i havnt seen?

There was a post about in ADD. They have been made, and researched, and it turned out that the simple halogens worked best.

The NBOH/NBOMe-2C:s are funny that way. They're not orally active, and they don't seem to follow the SAR of other 2C:s. For example, an a-methyl group decreases activity instead of increasing. On a normal 2C the trifluoromethyl substitution is perhaps the most potent, on NBOx:s it is not... and alkyl-substitutions didn't seem to work either.

Found the thread:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showpost.php?p=6398422&postcount=19


@Dread... Those two strained 4C rings could cause toxicity issues, especially due to the potential reactivity of being one position removed from an aryl system. It could metabolize to at least eight different compounds just based on those rings breaking.

Well, TCB-2 has one of those cyclobutene rings fused to the benzene, and I have not heard anything that would indicate it being toxic or otherwise harmful.

As for the cyclobutene on the other side (the 3,4-substitution) it was something Shulgin intended to make (2C-G2) but it was not technically possible at the time.

But if you're so worried about toxicity, then let's reduce the ring strain a bit:

substance1.png




And hey, how about a hemidragonfly of DMMDA?

substance2.png


Doesn't it look cool?
 
Last edited:
And hey, how about a hemidragonfly of DMMDA?

substance2.png


Doesn't it look cool?

Awesome, would it be called scorpio-DMMDA or something? :D

You know, I have never tried any piperazine though I have mCPP lying around - but from what I've heard it doesn't sound too promising to go research new piperazines although curiosity could be one reason. Sounds a little like a waste of resources to me or are there applications I'm unaware of?
 
I just couldn't resist posting one more far out chemical. Talk about symmetric?

symmetry.png


Lophophine-hemidragonfly with a conformationally restricted aminomethylindan tail!
 
Well... 5-meo-dmt-FLY is technically possible:

5meodmtfly.png


Or, of course you can apply this to any 5-meo-tryptamine...
 
ok, they have the TRI floro methyl

why not like di-ido di-chloro or tri-bromo or or or isopropyl

any reasons imperticulr?
 
Most of these research chemicals I dabbled in have me convinced that they are not meant to be consumed by humans. 2-c-p by far was one of the worst 2-c experiences I have ever had. The body load was pretty bad and the visuals I had on it were all very dark as hell. It seemed like the shadows were growing and engulfing me. Foxy methoxy had an even worse body load which caused vomiting and inner thigh spasms like crazy. I did have some of the most vivid closed eye visuals ever but couldnt enjoy them because of the body load. I'm sure poisonous mushrooms give you one hell of a trip before you die but you aren't gonna see me consuming them ever! lol
 
I'm sorry to hear that nugget. Most people I've spoken with, myself included find many of them to be very rewarding.

And hey, how about a hemidragonfly of DMMDA?


Doesn't it look cool?

I love the idea dread!
 
Most of these research chemicals I dabbled in have me convinced that they are not meant to be consumed by humans. 2-c-p by far was one of the worst 2-c experiences I have ever had. The body load was pretty bad and the visuals I had on it were all very dark as hell.

The visuals were probably dark and scary because you were having an uncomfortable experience and it was coming out through the visuals (and body load).

I dont think that rc's shouldnt be ingested. They are just psychedelics, like DMT, LSD, mushrooms, mescaline and mdma. The only difference is they only started becoming recognized as drugs and taken by the psych community a bit later than the ones i listed above because they were invented later.
And another difference is that we tacked this term RC's onto it, when really they're psychedelics just like the rest.

just throwing that out there.
 
hehe i know what it is, i meant its something ive always imagined to be "wildly visual". would love to try it.
.



Sorry to piss on your parade, but MMDA isn't 'wildly visual' unless you lie down, eyes closed in a darkened room (then you run the risk of falling asleep, like I've done on at least one occasion - MMDA is one of the most unstimulating amphetamines I've ever encountered)
 
How do you define a research chemical?

If the chemical is not "natural" it's an RC? Well, how do you know what's natural and what not? There are so many plants, fungi and animals in the world that we haven't analyzed yet. Amphetamine was thought to be man made up to a few years ago. Then it was found that a certain tree actually contains it, along with several other chemicals. And anyway, no one considers LSD a research chemical, although it is completely synthetic and doesn't occur in nature (as far as we know).

Or, if the chemical is new it's an RC? So how long does a chemical need to be used until it's no longer an RC?

Actually, I would say that in the end we humans understand so very little about any psychedelic that they should ALL be considered research chemicals.

By definition, a research chemical is a chemical that is being researched. So actually, one could even go so far as to claim that there is no chemical that is not a research chemical...
 
(1)

I think the 'fly' (2,3-furanyl) group would be better added at the 4 and 5 positions of DMT with the O at #4.

(2)

Don't judge all RCs based on a bad 2cp experience. I too hated 2cp, but RCs are a diverse group indeed.

(3)

Mono- and di- 'fly' (2,3-furanyl) phenyl ring substituted amphetamines have great unexplored psychedelic potential still to be had. Some of these can be derived from herniarin, benzofuran, bergapten, psoralen, xanthotoxin, and angelicin.

More synthetic yet, imagine the difuranylbenzo amphetamine derivative with its oxygens at positions #3 and #4 of the benzene ring--or at positions #2 and #5 for that matter!
 
Top