What do you mean about lab reports? And that still doesn't change the fact that it's still relatively new and it didn't have to go through anywhere near the amount of trials and testing that prescription drugs have to go through in order to be approved, and then some of them still end up being recalled or have people suing the company that made them due to complications. So just imagine how dangerous these drugs are compared to drugs that are FDA approved.
-
OD Moderators: Keif’ Richards | Tryptamino
A friend nearly dies from 80 mg of 4-FA
- Thread starter cathinone_king
- Start date
- Status
What do you mean about lab reports? And that still doesn't change the fact that it's still relatively new and it didn't have to go through anywhere near the amount of trials and testing that prescription drugs have to go through in order to be approved, and then some of them still end up being recalled or have people suing the company that made them due to complications. So just imagine how dangerous these drugs are compared to drugs that are FDA approved.
RobotRipping
Bluelighter
i'm shocked at some of the posts in here, i don't want to resort to name calling but what the fuck? how do you not know what 4-FA is seriously???
it's a fucking amphetamine, it's a stimulant, yeah it's an 'RC'
^he likely means the vendor had lab analysis done on the batch, tho that doesn't prove anything, it's quite probable most of the 4-FA out there is relatively pure. What do you mean just imagine how dangerous these drugs are? Either you're all being facetious or you're a bunch of judgmental assholes. we don't know whether 4-FA is dangerous compared to FDA approved drugs, you even mention that point that it hasn't been researched, for all you know, it could cure cancer and aids. Not like FDA drugs are safe anyway, fuck. Seriously disappointing to see a post like this from a moderator.
people use the NBOMes all the fucking time and no one reacts this way to people using them. 4-FA has a much better track record than any NBOMe. We all know it hasn't been researched well, but we certainly know a lot about methamphetamine, amphetamine and dextroamphetamine and all the other amphetamines and stimulants out there.
Do people have seizures with other stimulants, especially amphetamines? is essentially what the OP is either asking or should be asking. Or if anyone knowledgeable in pharmacology could possibly speculate how 4-FA might cause a blood clot to dislodge or something like Wintermute mentioned.
and yeah there are potent as fuck opioids out there that people have used, have you been hiding under a rock for the last 5 years?
have to agree with wintermute and OP (also nately's whore sorry didn't see ur post), the rest of the posts are stupid/irrelevant/ignorant and shocking coming from a community that has fully embraced the whole RC market without crying about 'the unknown dangers' of 'research chemicals' that no one is actually doing any research on. And spice seriously? is this thread from 10 years ago?
it's a fucking amphetamine, it's a stimulant, yeah it's an 'RC'
^he likely means the vendor had lab analysis done on the batch, tho that doesn't prove anything, it's quite probable most of the 4-FA out there is relatively pure. What do you mean just imagine how dangerous these drugs are? Either you're all being facetious or you're a bunch of judgmental assholes. we don't know whether 4-FA is dangerous compared to FDA approved drugs, you even mention that point that it hasn't been researched, for all you know, it could cure cancer and aids. Not like FDA drugs are safe anyway, fuck. Seriously disappointing to see a post like this from a moderator.
people use the NBOMes all the fucking time and no one reacts this way to people using them. 4-FA has a much better track record than any NBOMe. We all know it hasn't been researched well, but we certainly know a lot about methamphetamine, amphetamine and dextroamphetamine and all the other amphetamines and stimulants out there.
Do people have seizures with other stimulants, especially amphetamines? is essentially what the OP is either asking or should be asking. Or if anyone knowledgeable in pharmacology could possibly speculate how 4-FA might cause a blood clot to dislodge or something like Wintermute mentioned.
and yeah there are potent as fuck opioids out there that people have used, have you been hiding under a rock for the last 5 years?
have to agree with wintermute and OP (also nately's whore sorry didn't see ur post), the rest of the posts are stupid/irrelevant/ignorant and shocking coming from a community that has fully embraced the whole RC market without crying about 'the unknown dangers' of 'research chemicals' that no one is actually doing any research on. And spice seriously? is this thread from 10 years ago?
Last edited:
So first you are saying how it's an amphetamine / stimulant just like the others [methamphetamine, dextroamphetamine, etc], but then you say how it could possibly be the cure for cancer and aids.
I don't see how me saying how potentially dangerous taking a relatively new illicit drug can be is a disappointing post by a moderator.
RobotRipping said:
When did Bluelight fully embrace the whole RC market? We have lost several moderators due to their mental health deteriorating due to MXE abuse, have lost a crew member due to his abuse of mephedrone and many other RC's, and don't allow any vendor discussion or ID threads about RC's, yet you say we fully embraced them.
How do you know that no one reacted that way, or that 4-FA has a better track record than any NBOMe? If these were prescription drugs where clinical trials were performed and where reports of seizures or other side effects were reported to prescribing doctors then you would have a lot more backing to your statement. However, that's not the case since we are talking about RC's, and the majority of the information about peoples reactions to these drugs are from when people decide to mention them online, especially since most people that end up in the ER due to them fail to mention to the doctor what they were taking out of fear of being labeled a drug abuser or something.
Moving to Other Drugs.
NASADD --> OD
Last edited:
Crashing
Bluelighter
I find most RC's to be more hardcore than classical drugs in the side effect/unwanted effects department. None of them seem to really match up to the level of the standards, but there are a few that hold their own. Synthetic spice blends, depending on the chemicals and potency have (at least for me) induced probably the worst drug experiences out of anything i've ever taken. These occurrences happened almost randomly while in the midst of using them heavily.
Everyone reacts differently and dosage seems to vary dramatically with many of the RC's form person to person, even when administering the same batch. I have a pretty good amount of experience with 4-fa, 4-fma, and 2-fma (also went through a gram of 3-fa) and i can say although i enjoy them i have experienced the negative side with all of them when taking a bit too much. I have never had a seizure from anything except synth cannabinoids (not sure if it was a real seizure or not, i was convulsing violently but was conscious to witness it which made it quite unsettling indeed), but i have used with people who have just dropped on the floor seizing and they hadn't even done as much as i had. Weird stuff
Everyone reacts differently and dosage seems to vary dramatically with many of the RC's form person to person, even when administering the same batch. I have a pretty good amount of experience with 4-fa, 4-fma, and 2-fma (also went through a gram of 3-fa) and i can say although i enjoy them i have experienced the negative side with all of them when taking a bit too much. I have never had a seizure from anything except synth cannabinoids (not sure if it was a real seizure or not, i was convulsing violently but was conscious to witness it which made it quite unsettling indeed), but i have used with people who have just dropped on the floor seizing and they hadn't even done as much as i had. Weird stuff
littlepenguin
Bluelighter
because opinions are like assholes, and everybody's got one, even if it smells like shit.
beauty is in the eye of the beerholder. your "hottest topic here" equals my "afternoon nap." snoooooooooze.
and that's 'miss retard,' to you, ya little whippersnapper.
PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
or, to put it more maturely - bologna. as in, balderdash. as in, bullfonkingshit.
there is NO POSSIBLE WAY (unless you made the drug with your own two hands, and I'm willing to bet my left foot that you didn't...) that you know any of the information you listed in the last sentence of yours I quoted above as factual.
Was the source government regulated? (probably not, highly doubtful)
What are their exact rules and regulations?
What percentage of the chemical has to be "pure" to be made available to the public?
Who regulates and tests the chemicals?
How many years has this chemical been in existance? How long has this specific company been manufacturing it?
Who regulates the regulators? (not kidding, I'm being dead serious - in many places, including the good ol' U.S of A, "mis-labeling" is all too common; if a consumer doesn't research and check the "facts," they could believe that they're getting something that they're not, at all...example, organic foods and how they are labeled...that's totally off topic, but just listing an example...)
How many trials were done on labrats with this chemical? Human trials? What were the results?
Who prints these so-called (laughable) "legit lab reports?"
Even if there was a legitimate lab report made, do you actually think you could truly understand what it meant? (not being an ass, I'm really asking, since there's quite a few abbreviations and medical terms on a lab report - if you can read one, you must be in the medical field, yeah? right-on.)
You said "tons of other people took it with no problem..."
what is a ton? like, a metricfuckton? or an imperialfuckton? half a ton? is that like 4 really obese people or like 30 really skinny people? 50 four-year olds? do you know all these people? shit, you must be popular if you know everybody in the entire world that this chemical was made available to and how many took it (a ton, right?) and what each and every one of their reactions was to the chemical. phew! we're safe now, mama!!
...and gosh, that's a damn shame that your friend, out of alll the "ton" of people who consumed this chemical, was the only one to have a negative reaction "from it" (I put that in quotes because it is nearly impossible to say what acutely caused his seizure; we do not know what he ate that day, or what he ate yesterday, or where he went today and how much pollution was outside, or what the temperature was, or what was in the public water he drank, or what was in the cookie his friend gave him yesterday...I could go on for hours, but I'll spare the masses - grasp the point? There's literally hundreds of thousands of combinations of things that could have caused or contributed to your friend's seizure. There's no identifiably possible way to accurately say "this specific chemical was the cause of D's seizure."
RobotRipping
Bluelighter
you said imagine how dangerous these drugs are compared to FDA approved drugs, which is stupid. Potentially dangerous, potentially a panacea, the thing is, we don't know! Sure it's an amphetamine, but as you did mention and as everyone else knows, it doesn't have a ton of research on it, really for all you know, it could cure cancer or turn you into a carrot, likely not but we just don't know right? There are many FDA approved drugs that have caused many deaths, tons of harm, were pushed through with shoddy research.
Tommyboy said:
i mean just read that over, i'm sure you didn't mean it like that or at least i hope. Being FDA approved has nothing to do with research and safety, many drugs are pushed through that are dangerous and there are tons of counter-examples to that statement. That's what i find disappointing, that you somehow appeal to the FDA as the gold standard of safety. Look at the amount of acetaminophen deaths compared to 2c-x/amphetamines/amphetamine analogues/every single RC all added together, even the most dangerous of them.
maybe not the moderators but the users certainly have, this generation of drug users has fully embraced RCs and as such, have come here looking to discuss them and find out how to safely use them. Take a look in OD, PD, DS or pretty much any other forum and you'll see posts about RCs for the last 10 years, becoming more and more frequent each year from then on. Yeah there's no vendor discussion or ID threads because that would clog everything up, vendors would advertise here, it'd be a big mess like other vendor review boards and not meant for harm reduction. Same with the ID threads, all speculation, so there's no point in allowing them. That doesn't disprove the argument that the BL community as a whole, are using/talking/providing HR advice about RCs and about the RC market as a whole. How many moderators are just straight up drug addicts anyway? 50%? it's not like street drugs are any more safe than research chemicals. Unless you're a pharm drug addict, you're still taking a pretty big risk with street drugs or RCs.
Tommyboy said:
I don't know, but neither do you. However I'm open to taking what little info we have and trying to help others make informed decisions about using 'research chemicals.'
how many deaths do we have from the media on 4-fa? how many media reports are there even on 4-FA or any of the other RC amphetamines?? I can't think of a single one. We know there are deaths that were 100% caused by 25i-NBOMe.
I can say the same thing for 2c-i, 2c-e, 2c-b, probably everything but 2c-t-7, it's an RC, they are RCs that have amazing track records, didn't go through clinical trials though some do have research on them.
Am i wrong to say 2c-i is safer than its cousin 25i-NBOMe? No i'm not. No clinical trials needed, no Drs needed. We know this only from anecdotal evidence but it doesn't matter, with what little info we have on these drugs, we can make informed decisions about their safety instead of just saying ALL RCS ARE BAD ANDU STUPIDD IF U TAKE THEM WHAT U EXPECT ITS AN RC WE DONT KNOW WHY U FACE BLEW UP. Yeah like your average street MDMA/meth/heroin/coke is much safer?? fuck at least there are SOME legitimate vendors who do a lab analysis on EVERY SINGLE BATCH and aren't bullshitting because they are well known by the government in my country, which will also do lab analysis on these drugs from time to time to ensure they are what they are!!!! It's actually far more regulated here than people know and certainly more regulated than the black market. You can't sell shit here without health canada jumping in to make sure it's cool.
I hope you see where i am coming from here. Just because it's not researched does not mean we cannot make informed decisions about using certain RCs over others. And fuck it, some of us here are willingly the guinea pigs for extremely rare substances that only a few human beings have ever tried. Are you going to call Shulgin stupid for guinea pigging himself with tons of RCs? No he's a legendary figure who changed the world. An icon to the psychedelic/MDMA users but he didn't know what would happen after taking 2c-i or MDMA the first time any more than a person on ADD would after speculation based on other related drugs.
RobotRipping
Bluelighter
most vendors will happily hand you out the NMR analysis (in form of a picture), which is like looking at a graph. There's still the chance the vendor didn't actually test them but there are vendors who aren't interested in killing their customers now and will lab test every batch of every chemical.
even if you made the drug yourself you'd still have to do an NMR/analysis on it.
anyway yeah it's tough to link a seizure to a relatively unknown drug but if 10 people in a group each do 80mg and 1 has a seizure, what do you think the odds are that 1 person's seizure was related to the drug? Yeah he could have just coincidentally had a seizure, what are the odds of that though? pretty unlikely. There's no way we can make a causal link but instead of shitting on OP, perhaps providing OP with reports of similar happenings with other amphetamines would at least be helpful. Instead now there's this big convoluted argument about the safety/risks of drugs found on the internet. We know the risks, we take them, and shit happens but why just dismiss something instead of taking a step back and thinking, 'well it is an amphetamine, there have been other reports of the exact same thing with other users of amphetamines, especially if they have blood clots, perhaps there's a correlation at least.' It'd be even more helpful if one could speculate on the 4-flouro- part of 4-fa, how would that make it different in theory than say amphetamine itself?
Hiltoniano
Bluelighter
^ damn.
littlepenguin
Bluelighter
I didn't know what 4-FA was, until I started reading on it yesterday/today.
I could draw a hypothesis on what I thought it was, from previous experience and education.
-I knew it was some type of stimulant based upon the full chemical name (4-fluoroamphetamine)
-I was quite sure it was under the group of drugs called "research chemicals"
looks like I get my gold star today. thank goodness, because I would hate to be subject to any 'name calling' because I'm not as 'educated' as you on a bunch of obscure research chemicals.
lab analysis by vendors proves nothing. check.
According to you, what does it matter if the vendor tests them, anyways? As you stated above, lab analysis by vendors proves nothing.
If the vendor does provide one with a pretty picture/graph, who checks these 'facts'? How do we know we're not looking at a graph they pulled off their google machine from the analysis of some random, possibly semi-similar drug, and copied it out and slapped it on the package to make it look legit? YOU DON'T KNOW. PERIOD.
Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NOBODY TO REGULATE OR CHECK THESE DRUGS.
***I want to point out here that I give props to honest vendors who take pride in their work, and make a serious effort to uphold their integrities and actually analyze the drugs they are making/selling, and the 'negative' parts of this argument are not directed towards them.
However, as everyone knows, the bad apple(s) spoils the bunch. Shitty? Yup. Unfair? Yup.
Same with all the people who didn't research these drugs before trying them. In my opinion, they are mostly the ones who have ruined it for the rest of us, the 'responsible' users who take the time to check how much they should take in a dosage, recognize the possible dangers, and proceed with caution. Instead, they see a substance that looks like cocaine (like, bath salts, for -a loose example- instance) and they lay out a giant rail, because, well - that's what they'd have done if they had cocaine. They rock out this massive rail and then wonder why they end up in the hospital with a heart rate that could shoot a rocket into space and say "I don't know what happened!!!??!?!" No shit, Sherlock. Investigate first. Which, in turn, results in sensationalism and assumptions from the media, because they have to tell us something that's going on in the world (anything but what is REALLY going on and what really matters...please excuse my opinion here) and it gets blown out of porportion and made illegal, thus screwing over actual researchers and scientists, and ultimately, the 'responsible' users and vendors who have taken the time to make and use things correctly.
I'd also like to say that I have nothing against research chemicals. I've personally tried a few, some were kinda okay, and one - I had one of the worst experiences of my entire life, and I shudder every time I think about it. Do I blame anyone? Vendors? My friends? Absolutely not. I am an adult, and I can choose what I want to put in my body, and I made the choice to take the risk and try something. Did the next guy who took the same thing have a bloody grand time? Sure. Maybe. I don't know. I'd certainly never recommend it to anyone, though.
The only thing that matters to me here, is factual evidence. I dig that you're about promoting RC's, and that's great. However, it's unfair and incorrect to be passing off opinions or personal experiences as solid facts, and to be dissing the moderator, who in my opinion, said exactly what he should have. His job here is to promote harm reduction, and that's exactly what he did.***
"quite probable"
and
"relatively pure"
I don't have to say anything, except for point out how INCREDIBLY AND UNBELIEVABLY VAGUE those two phrases are. My point proven.
Just imagine how dangerous these drugs are?!?!? Okay...can do.
1. There is no regulation on these RC companies. None.
2. Non-regulation (can and does) result in dishonest practices, lack of analysis, lack of honest analysis, and thus providing a product that may or may not be anything like the one the consumer thinks they're getting.
3. On a personal note/observation, having been digging around on the internet myself for the past two days, I looked at many (22) different vendor websites. On all but 2 of them, there were spelling and gramatical errors. Not just one error, but multiple errors. Now, I realize that to you or many others, this may be considered an invalid or unrelated argument that has absolutely nothing to do with research chemicals and their effects on the human body. You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with RC's or their effects. What it does have to do with, is the
reputability of the company. Here is a couple direct quotes from the first research chemical company website I found:
I don't even understand the last sentence.
This one is my personal favorite...
Zoinks, Scoob! I can make soup! That means...I can make drugs!!! Rut-roh...
I don't know about you, but I don't think I'll be purchasing any drugs from a company who can't take the time to look up how to spell the word ATTENTION correctly before posting it on their worldwide business website, or a company who obviously didn't take the extra five minutes to spell check their pages, or neglected to hire an editor, or didn't pass 4th grade...
Yes, I understand that these companies are in different countries, like China, and it's not likely or obvious that English is their first language.
Yes, I understand that is it probably not the chemists or scientists themselves that write or put together these websites, and it doesn't directly relate to their abilities to provide or produce a spectacular research chemical.
Yes, I understand that it's possible/very likely that the people who manufactured my drug of choice (methamphetamine) probably don't speak any English at all. Luckily, I speak Spanish.
Anyways, the spelling and gramatical errors are just a sidenote/observation. I will say though, it certainly doesn't make that company look good - at all.
Also, call me crazy, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any spelling errors on, let's say...the FDA's website.
Actually, I think we do know weather 4-FA is dangerous compared to FDA approved drugs.
I'd also place a pretty safe bet on the fact that 4-FA is not going to be the drug that cures cancer and/or AIDS.
Why?
Well, I'm browsing through pages and pages of studies conducted on 4-FA and multiple other research chemicals dating back to 1975.
That's almost 40 years of available research on 4-FA and many of it's halogenated friends - and you said "no one is actually doing any research on them." Huh.
"...not like FDA drugs are safe anyway..."
Okay, I can agree that I don't think that the FDA is the 'gold star' on drugs, or making damn sure they're completely safe and harmless. I do know that drugs that are passed through the FDA go through a fairly rigorous amount of tests...
from fda.gov
Drug Review Steps Simplified
1. Preclinical (animal) testing.
2. An investigational new drug application (IND) outlines what the sponsor of a new drug proposes for human testing in clinical trials.
3. Phase 1 studies (typically involve 20 to 80 people).
4. Phase 2 studies (typically involve a few dozen to about 300 people).
5. Phase 3 studies (typically involve several hundred to about 3,000 people).
6. The pre-NDA period, just before a new drug application (NDA) is submitted. A common time for the FDA and drug sponsors to meet.
7. Submission of an NDA is the formal step asking the FDA to consider a drug for marketing approval.
8. After an NDA is received, the FDA has 60 days to decide whether to file it so it can be reviewed.
9. If the FDA files the NDA, an FDA review team is assigned to evaluate the sponsor's research on the drug's safety and effectiveness.
10. The FDA reviews information that goes on a drug's professional labeling (information on how to use the drug).
11. The FDA inspects the facilities where the drug will be manufactured as part of the approval process.
12. FDA reviewers will approve the application or issue a complete response letter.
Reviewing Applications
Though FDA reviewers are involved with a drug's development throughout the IND stage, the official review time is the length of time it takes to review a new drug application and issue an action letter, an official statement informing a drug sponsor of the agency's decision.
Once a new drug application is filed, an FDA review team--medical doctors, chemists, statisticians, microbiologists, pharmacologists, and other experts--evaluates whether the studies the sponsor submitted show that the drug is safe and effective for its proposed use.
No drug is absolutely safe; all drugs have side effects. "Safe" in this sense means that the benefits of the drug appear to outweigh the known risks.
The review team analyzes study results and looks for possible issues with the application, such as weaknesses of the study design or analyses. Reviewers determine whether they agree with the sponsor's results and conclusions, or whether they need any additional information to make a decision.
Each reviewer prepares a written evaluation containing conclusions and recommendations about the application. These evaluations are then considered by team leaders, division directors, and office directors, depending on the type of application.
Reviewers receive training that fosters consistency in drug reviews, and good review practices remain a high priority for the agency.
-fda.gov
Now, I was thinking about googling
"What are the legal steps one must take to sell research chemicals?" and I actually did.
I didn't find much; and then it occoured to me - I probably wasn't going to be able to find these steps listed anywhere, since asking that question is the same as asking,
"What steps must one take for the crack dealer down the street to sell crack?"
I don't know - count how many steps he takes to walk out the door to the corner...?
In a study I found in a medical journal from England, the purpose or objectives of the tests were:
-To analyse the chemical composition of substances bought over the internet, including the legality of the active ingredients and if products differ between retailers.
-To consider the medical implications and adverse health risks associated with legal highs bought over the internet.
They studied 22 different products from 5 different retailers. Here's the chart of their results:
Table 1:
Summary of the 22 legal highs purchased via the internet, including the compounds detected, the accuracy of their description and their legal status
Product Compounds detected As described Status
Supplier A
-Benzofury- 1-Benzofuran-6-ylpropan-2-amine (6-APB) Yes Legal
-Jolly Green Granules - Benzocaine/Did not specify contents Legal
-MDAI- 5,6-Methylenedioxy-2-aminoindane Yes Legal
-Methoxetamine- 2-(3-Methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone Yes Legal*
-MPA- N-methyl-1-(thiophen-2-yl)propan-2-amine Yes Legal
-NRG-2- 4-Methylethcathinone (4-MEC). Contaminant mephedrone No Illegal
-NRG-3- 1-Benzofuran-6-ylpropan-2-amine (6-APB) No Legal
-5-IAI- 5-Iodo-2-aminoindane Yes Legal
Supplier B
-Benzofury- 1-Benzofuran-6-ylpropan-2-amine (6-APB) Yes Legal
-MDAI- Benzocaine No Legal
-5-IAI- 5-Iodo-2-aminoindane Yes Legal
Supplier C
-Benzofury- 1-Benzofuran-6-ylpropan-2-amine Yes Legal
-Methoxetamine- 2-(3-Methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone Yes Legal*
Supplier D
-Jolly Green Granules- Benzocaine/Did not specify contents Legal
-MDAI Gold- 5,6-Methylenedioxy-2-aminoindane Yes Legal
-MPA- N-methyl-1-(thiophen-2-yl) propan-2-amine Yes Legal
-NRG-2- 4-Methylethcathinone (4-MEC). Contaminant mephedrone No Illegal
-NRG-3- 1-Benzofuran-6-ylpropan-2-amine (6-APB) No Legal
-5-IAI- 5-Iodo-2-aminoindane Yes Legal
Supplier E
-Benzofury- 1-Benzofuran-6-ylpropan-2-amine (6-APB) Yes Legal
-MDAI Gold- 5,6-Methylenedioxy-2-aminoindane Yes Legal
-Methoxetamine- 2-(3-Methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone Yes Legal*
** Legal—methoxetamine was legal when this research was initially conducted; however, it has since (March 2012) been classified as a temporary class drug making its supply illegal. **
here's the link to that graph, since it's not very appealing to the eye here: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000977/T1.expansion.html
The majority of products purchased -91%- provided information pertaining to the active ingredients present in each substance (either on the website or packaging, or both), although products purchased from three of the suppliers (A, B and D) did not adhere to the advertised ingredients. Out of the 22 products supplied and analysed, 9% did not list the active ingredients (Jolly Green Granules) and 23% did not contain the active ingredients listed on the website or package.
Variation between retailers
The chemical composition of the products purchased from supplier A and supplier D were identical, as was the packaging, indicating that either two websites are fronting the same company or that both companies purchase goods from the same source. Specifically, the NRG-2 products tested from suppliers A and D and the relative concentration of each chemical suggested that they originated from the same source. If both suppliers A and D obtained NRG-2 from the same source, this suggests that, given the large quantities available to purchase (up to 1 kg), the scale of production or importation of these substances is alarming.
Suppliers varied on the information they provided in terms of contents, instructions on use and whether the drug was labelled ‘not fit for human consumption’. Of the 22 products purchased, 68% contained the warning ‘not fit for human consumption’ on the internet site but all contained this warning on the packaging. Although 23% had information on how to use the product, this was of little use if the user intended to ingest it, as it related to feeding plants or conducting research (see table 1). The information provided included ‘doses of 0.05 g will give your plants incredible growth … to be dissolved in water’ and ‘very small doses of this research chemical are required for legitimate research, it is essential that your lab has access to scales that can weigh in increments of ten milligrams (0.01 g)’.
The majority of websites and drug packets contained no safety information -77%- explaining how to use the substance or the recommended dose, which is concerning since many of the substances purchased could be bought in amounts that varied from 1 g to 1 kg.
Implications
Despite the perception that ‘legal’ means ‘safe’ to some users, NPSs appear to be more harmful than many of their more traditional illegal counterparts. Even though drugs like benzofuran, bromo-dragonFLY and MPA (N-methyl-1-(thiophen-2-yl)propan-2-amine) are legal to buy, little is known about the safety of these substances, how they interact with other drugs, their long-term effects (psychologically and behaviourally) on humans or their toxicity. This also applies to the banned drugs naphyrone, synthetic cannabinoids and mephedrone.
Users of substituted cathinones like mephedrone are presenting to hospitals with tachycardia (rapid heart rate), hypertension, chest pains, myoclonus (muscle contractions), hallucinations, paranoia, violence and sympathomimetic syndrome.
Although there is emerging medical research documenting the harmfulness of NPSs, there is also evidence pertaining to the emergent health risks associated with legal anaesthetics, like benzocaine and lidocaine, which are being sold in their place.
Allergic reactions to benzocaine are common and ingesting more than the recommended amount can cause an overdose, particularly in susceptible individuals because there is ‘no therapeutic window’ (between the doses required to produce a therapeutic effect and those producing toxicity).
Benzocaine has also been linked to a toxic blood disorder methemoglobinaemia in adults who take small quantities medicinally and unknown quantities illicitly in adulterated cocaine.
The presence of benzocaine in legal highs is well documented. However, it is never listed as one of the active ingredients - meaning each product contains indefinite quantities, which is disturbing since research estimates that benzocaine induced methemoglobinaemia only requires a small amount to cause cyanosis (a bluish discolouration of the skin caused by a deficiency of oxygen in the blood).
Although there have been no known deaths from benzocaine, the death of a teenager was attributed to cocaine containing four times the toxic dose of lidocaine, illustrating the potential health risks arising from the varied composition of these products.
The arbitrariness of the advertised ingredients and mislabelling of products exacerbates the detrimental consequences for the health of the user. Products do not always contain the advertised active ingredients, even those with the same name. The contents of the NRG products have varied substantially from one type of cathinone, to a combination of cathinones, to banned piperazines, and to inorganic material or benzocaine.
Users are inadvertently being exposed to unidentified drugs in unknown concentrations, which increase the risk of toxicity and overdose. Those repeatedly buying the same product and expecting the same effects may actually be taking a completely different and more potent substance. The user is also exposed to the risks arising from the potentiating effect of any drug interactions and their subsequent metabolites produced inside the body.
However, any adverse effects brought on by these drugs are unlikely to be identified by clinicians, as drug screening does not identify these new and unique compounds, and despite recent publications examining specific toxicity case studies, their toxicological detection in biological specimens is challenging. Since only a small amount is need to elicit an effect and the minimum amount that can be purchased is 1 g, users will continue to present themselves to A&E departments across the country.
The public health risks associated with these drugs are compounded by the lack of safety guidance (ie, use and dosage information) provided by websites. All substances are labelled as not fit for human consumption, with some advocating medical assistance if swallowed.
While this does not seem to deter use, it means that NPSs can be sold having undergone no checks and adhering to no regulations, which means that they could contain anything. Therefore, the growth in NPSs poses insurmountable challenges to clinicians attempting to identify and diagnose the adverse health effects arising from the ingestion of un-researched, unknown and unidentifiable chemicals.
source from: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
I will continue to respond to the other parts of your post(s), but for now, I'm out of breath. That, and frankly, it's fap time.
sources:
isomerism . org
fda.gov
bmjopen.com
lol @ this thread
impulsively took a lot of this shit 2 days ago after a really, really shitty night. was unstable. around 100-200 mg first time and made the mistake of snorting some :D.
was like abusing ritalin. no speedy/talky euphoria, not even functional; just fucking tweaked out & weird. i compulsively kept playing with/measuring out doses of the powder without taking it, doing this for hours. what?
had intense stomach pains (acidic as fuck) & diarrhea the next day. threw the bag in the trash, will never touch this stuff again, etc.
just my personal experience. agree with the users here speaking out against blind, alarmist views on RCs. people use this stuff all the fucking time. come on. if it does damage to anyone it's likely the manner they took it or whether they had some other underlying condition that exacerbated some adverse effects. it IS a stimulant.
impulsively took a lot of this shit 2 days ago after a really, really shitty night. was unstable. around 100-200 mg first time and made the mistake of snorting some :D.
was like abusing ritalin. no speedy/talky euphoria, not even functional; just fucking tweaked out & weird. i compulsively kept playing with/measuring out doses of the powder without taking it, doing this for hours. what?
had intense stomach pains (acidic as fuck) & diarrhea the next day. threw the bag in the trash, will never touch this stuff again, etc.
just my personal experience. agree with the users here speaking out against blind, alarmist views on RCs. people use this stuff all the fucking time. come on. if it does damage to anyone it's likely the manner they took it or whether they had some other underlying condition that exacerbated some adverse effects. it IS a stimulant.
Last edited:
littlepenguin
Bluelighter
Blind, alarmist views on anything are not good; I don't think I really saw any in this thread.
You're probably right in saying that many adverse effects are likely caused by underlying conditions or improper dosage or ROA - however, if you took the time to read the study I posted above, you'd see that underlying conditions and improper dosing are definitely NOT the only two dangers of taking RC's.
Secret Agent Chick
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2010
- Messages
- 63
A lot of people are asking how people can use RCs as opposed to "real drugs".
I first got involved with RCs when mephedrone was legal. So I guess the simple legality factor was a plus for me.
Plus, there is the supply factor. I have to try and find something suitable, that I like, etc, that I can order online. I'm not somebody that has "connections" and I live in a small country town where there isn't a local trusted drug dealer that you can buy from.
Yes, these are pretty much unknown chemicals, so I am taking a risk ... but really, aren't we all to some point.
I haven't tried 4-fa, but my RC of choice for the last year (or two) has been 3-fa. To me it feels like a fairly clean stim, no adverse effects (so far) .... I know that doesn't mean that down the track I won't find out I've done some kind of damage, but the fact is I have used it, and will no doubt use it again.
So unless somebody wants to do a bit of a road trip and give me a gift baggy of "good drugs" then I guess I'm left with RCs.
I first got involved with RCs when mephedrone was legal. So I guess the simple legality factor was a plus for me.
Plus, there is the supply factor. I have to try and find something suitable, that I like, etc, that I can order online. I'm not somebody that has "connections" and I live in a small country town where there isn't a local trusted drug dealer that you can buy from.
Yes, these are pretty much unknown chemicals, so I am taking a risk ... but really, aren't we all to some point.
I haven't tried 4-fa, but my RC of choice for the last year (or two) has been 3-fa. To me it feels like a fairly clean stim, no adverse effects (so far) .... I know that doesn't mean that down the track I won't find out I've done some kind of damage, but the fact is I have used it, and will no doubt use it again.
So unless somebody wants to do a bit of a road trip and give me a gift baggy of "good drugs" then I guess I'm left with RCs.
MentalMana
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Messages
- 21
I don't personally agree with the classification of 4-FA as an 'amphetamine' just because I believe 'amphetamine' is the two isomers of d and l-amphetamine, and not a class of empirically provable qualities; analogs of amphetamine, I don't believe, deserve to be properly called amphetamine. But my crazy theories on nomenclature I'll leave out.
The blood clotting may be an indication of serotonin syndrome, which wouldn't be a farfetched idea considering this amphetamine analog. Had your friend taken this substance before? It would be helpful to see the Dr's notes on this case. The convulsions and seizure also serve to support this serotonin syndrome hypothesis.
The blood clotting may be an indication of serotonin syndrome, which wouldn't be a farfetched idea considering this amphetamine analog. Had your friend taken this substance before? It would be helpful to see the Dr's notes on this case. The convulsions and seizure also serve to support this serotonin syndrome hypothesis.
bloodshed344
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,575
It has nothing to do with your crazy theories, it's a substituted amphetamine and that's all there is to it. No opinions involved.
Also, the serotonin syndrome idea sounds plausible to me.
shimazu
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2012
- Messages
- 18,415
Yeah I am not a huge RC fan by any stretch but I find it incredibly laughable people who buy dope are coming at those who are RC fans for ingesting things that haven't been clinically tested
how do you know what your shit is really cut with?
and I guarantee some dope that you have done at some point in time has been up a person's asshole, so take that into consideration.
how do you know what your shit is really cut with?
and I guarantee some dope that you have done at some point in time has been up a person's asshole, so take that into consideration.
bloodshed344
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,575
Not only that, if you're buying coke or crack or even acid and still some other drugs... like say hash or speed paste in Europe, and even heroin and obviously ecstasy then you've probably had a batch or 10 with research chemicals in it, and additives used for filler and texture that are unknown. Also, street drugs will almost always be more impure than research chemicals.
Anyone talking about how "real" drugs are superior is just probably old and cranky, lol.
littlepenguin
Bluelighter
neat! 'cuz when I get my dope, my asshole is the first place it goes.
so I guess I'm like, kinda having buttsex with somebody...for free.
winner winner chicken dinner
THE_REAL_OBLIVION
Bluelight Crew
qft, what if that happened to somebody using AMT ? I bet all of those guys didn't know AMT was used as antidepressant in 10mg doses in East Germany and the USSR way before it was brought back in 2000 or so. A lot of the knee-jerk reactions possible for aMT if we follow their incendiary comments as the norm should have been back then : You want to use a drug that was used as an antidepressant in communist/socialist dictatorships ? LOL, those guys are so corrupted it could be made from rat poison! And where are the safety reports from the FDA about it ?
There isn't a single molecule in this world that hurt me more than Effexor, venlafaxine, in fact,it fucked me up so badly it is the primarily reason i went on benzos in 2007 and then when benzos didnt do the job anymore at calming me down and feeling like my brain isn't on fire, literally and figuratively, I went to opiates (I also had other pain issues like most people but yeah..) Fuck your FDA and fuck our Health Canada, they don't mean a single thing. The FDA requires 3 reports from drug testing companies (those who do it on paid human "voluntary" subjects, I added quotes because people do this because they're shit out of luck and out of money because they weren't born in the "correct" social class") to accept them, let's say Eli Lilly invents a product a dose 50 different studies on it, they can discard the 47 studies the companies judge do not make their medication look good to the eyes of the governmental agencies regulating those things, in this case, the FDA, and send them the 3 positive clinical trials.
Prescription or not, you're almost all the dark. Even with life saving things like antibiotics, some classes are so bad they should be totally eradicated (fluoroquinolones).
I gotta stop here because these dorks really got me started right here.
This does not prove ANYTHING, hahaha. The very few rc's I do get are just medecine not in the canadian pharmacopeia and also Ibogaine Hcl. Funny how they sell none of 5-APB's too, only very known things, some since the beginning (2ct-2, amt) are there. Some people who are old school (I'm past 30 now, I'm old school in this shit) can detect if a place is a fraud just by the looks of their website. But hey, you're free to put the whole thing in the same bag bud.
Last edited by a moderator:
littlepenguin
Bluelighter
excuse the fuck outta me, but, I never said that, so don't fucking quote me as saying that.
I don't give a frog's fat fucking ass if you don't agree with my presentation of information, but don't you dare fucking mis-quote me.
Fuck all these stupid RC's with ridiculous names. The stimulant cathinones are especially dangerous. They sound like completely shit tier drugs . Like throw away drugs. You want a stimulant? GO find some fucking meth. Not some weird chemical made in a Chinese lab. The only RC's that i think are relatively good are some of the 2c's.
- Status