• 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

4-desmethylmescaline / 3,5-dimethoxytyramine

Hammilton

Hammilton

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
3,435
I was at walmart last night and thought I'd have a look at the "weight loss" pills they had for sale there. I was really surprised at what I found. One of them lists 3,5-dimethoxytyramine as an ingredient. I'm sure it's in low concentration (they list a dose of 50mg of a handful of phenethylamine derivatives).

3,5-dimethoxytyramine would be 4-hydroxy-3,5-dimethoxy-beta-phenethylamine. This would be 4-desmethylmescaline.

Interesting that a product at WALMART would have such an obvious analogue on sale for human consumption. I find a paper that shows 4-DMMesc is metabolised to mescaline proper. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v237/n5356/abs/237454a0.html)

Obviously, even if all 50mg was this compound, it wouldn't produce psychedelic effects, and with all the caffeine in it, you can't take enough to reach a psychedelic dose, but this seems like a really obvious legal problem for walmart.

searching online shows that this isn't the only product that includes this chemical.

I don't like the double standard.

However, does anyone know if this chem itself has been trialed for psychedelic effects itself?
 
I could be wrong but there might be something in pihkal about it on the mescaline page... edit. I was wrong, there was only about n-substituted analogs of mescaline. Disregard this

but if it metabolizes to mescaline... hell, extraction and separation from the caffeine should be a piece of cake for anyone willing to put in a bit of effort!

Also wouldn't probably be very hard to convert into mescaline...
 
Speaking of this compound,

It's a major constituent of the fast growing and beautifully flowering Pterocereus gaumeri and several other cacti. Always peculiar that A. Rigidula's alkaloidal content seems to have so much in common with cacti.
 
Well, not exactly in bulk, you'd have to spend >100 dollars to get one 300mg dose.
 
Then you better find out where from Walmart is getting this. Or the respective producer (I guess Walmart just sells it)...

How about this fancy analogy-law that you have in the US? Isn't this compound practically the same like the long scheduled mescaline? Hammilton already mentioned this detail before. I wonder why nobody pissed at Walmart yet for this reason. But now that we have talked about it, maybe somebody will ;)

- Murphy
 
Jesus christ that's insane! You could read about 20 pages of an organic chemistry book to understand this, it would only take two ingredients to make into mescaline!
 
I believe that the analog law may be circumvented because this preparation makes it impossible to get similar effects to the scheduled compound (mescaline). Is this not a key to prosecuting under the law: substantial similarity in structure, effects profile, and marketed for human consumption.

Surely if it was marketed as a legal high it would be prosecuted but remember the interpretation for big business and small time chemists and users is not the same.

Also consider many household products that contain scheduled compounds in minute amounts that the other ingredients make impossible to become active. For example diazapam in red wine, gbl + nasties in nail polish remover, etc...
 
Last edited:
And vice versa I would guess its also a metabolite of Mescaline.Bad if you're going to a drug screen.
 
theWorldWithin said:
I believe that the analog law may be circumvented because this preparation makes it impossible to get similar effects to the scheduled compound (mescaline). Is this not a key to prosecuting under the law: substantial similarity in structure, effects profile, and marketed for human consumption.

Surely if it was marketed as a legal high it would be prosecuted but remember the interpretation for big business and small time chemists and users is not the same.

Also consider many household products that contain scheduled compounds in minute amounts that the other ingredients make impossible to become active. For example diazapam in red wine, gbl + nasties in nail polish remover, etc...
Click to expand...

The other household products bit is a red herring. I can't determine the validity of wine containing diazepam, but if it does, it's in the ppm to ppb range, and it's a product that's been around for >2000 years, and is an explicitly legal product in the US. Extraction isn't feasible, and it won't contribute to the pharmacological profile.

can't find documentation for GBL, but apparently butanediol, which has case law saying that it's not an analogue, plus it isn't for human consumption and doesn't seem to be a realistic source for extraction.

This is a product that contains a mescaline analogue / prodrug / precursor in a realistic, if small, concentration.

The law doesn't say anything about the product needing to produce substantially similar effects, only that the chemical do so.

These companies aren't owned by walmart, they're independent, and generally pretty small. Given the FDA's willingness to take on the largest of them recently, I don't see this as a case of dual standards.

Like most things, I imagine they just don't know about it. I'll be quite surprised if the products containing this stay on the market long, though I would be a little surprised if there were any criminal sanctions.
 
could everyone kindly leave this alone, and not get mescaline even more heavily controlled due to extra negative media attention please?
 
nemesys said:
could everyone kindly leave this alone, and not get mescaline even more heavily controlled due to extra negative media attention please?
Click to expand...

Just to make sure I'm following the reasoning in this thread correctly, are the following accurate?

1) The US ephedrine ban came sometime during the 1st GW Bush administration.
2) US OTC stims subsequently released "ephedra-free" reformulations of their products.
3) Many of these incorporated some portion of the acacia rigidula tree
4) Said tree was reported to contain numerous psychoactive compounds in this study.
5) The study is believed to be apocryphal and its results have yet to be reviewed or reproduced.
6) Many US OTC stims nevertheless continue to list many of these compounds on their labels simply because their products contain A. rigidula.

Or is the claim that there actually is desmethylmescaline separately added to these stims? I have a bottle of a similar product sitting in front of me. The maker isn't required to independently verify the molecular composition of the product's various ingredients, right? Just like Folgers isn't required to bioassay its coffee beans in order to tell you their product contains caffeine?
 
nemesys said:
could everyone kindly leave this alone, and not get mescaline even more heavily controlled due to extra negative media attention please?
Click to expand...

This statement is as pointless as a statement can be. :\
Mescaline is Schedule I in the US now for decades. How could it get controlled more heavily? And IIRC, the compound in question is just closely related to mescaline, not mescaline itself. So what?

- Murphy
 
I believe that the point is that because there are many easily obtainable sources for this precious psychedelic it would be foolish to bring more media attention to it because as we all know it will definitely result in tighter control of all sources if the story blows up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top