A friend nearly dies from 80 mg of 4-FA

[MentalMana]

Methamphetamine (you're right though, it wasn't in a Chinese factory, the guy who popularized it was in Japan) was once an RC, as was MDMA, LSD, etc. etc. etc. It's not beneficial to put a blanket label on RC's; by all logic, the polio vaccine was an RC. Essentially what it comes down to is that chemicals can't be 'good' or 'bad' and you certainly can't determine a chemical's effects completely based on theories from it deriving structures. That being said, smart on you for not attempting to put your body on the line for an exploration of consciousness.

 

[F1n1shed]

I just wouldn't feel comfortable fucking with Strong stimulant RC's on a daily basis. I wouldn't know if my heart would give out due to weird synthesis or unknown things about the drug. They just haven't been out long enough.
With the drugs that have been around, you know if you dose smartly the chance that you will die is very slim. Catch my drift?

 

[bluespeed]

I just wouldn't feel comfortable fucking with Strong stimulant RC's on a daily basis. I wouldn't know if my heart would give out due to weird synthesis or unknown things about the drug. They just haven't been out long enough.
With the drugs that have been around, you know if you dose smartly the chance that you will die is very slim. Catch my drift?

No, I don't catch your drift at all. Hundreds of people die due to meth induced heart illnesses every week because they think they "dose smartly".

 

[THE_REAL_OBLIVION]

I just wouldn't feel comfortable fucking with Strong stimulant RC's on a daily basis. I wouldn't know if my heart would give out due to weird synthesis or unknown things about the drug. They just haven't been out long enough.
With the drugs that have been around, you know if you dose smartly the chance that you will die is very slim. Catch my drift?

Oh me neither, back then at the beginning some guy got really excited when I told him that BZP stuff was a lot like speed, and he enjoyed it, but i didn't take any of it. I thought it seemed yucky, so, I wouldn't want to try anything thats a stimulant rc especially since I already have a script for dexedrine that I just keep piling up these days.

re angry reply : I didn't put words in your mouth, but you did quote a very long analysis of these sketch as fuck products from british vendors, you know the country that blanket banned pihkal and tihkal....any place that sells a product named Benzofury or NRG-2 is automatically scummy and shouldn't be given a second glance. Many of us know what we are doing in this scene and I tend to agree very much that very few of the actual rc's available to most people are not worth it.

Different story if you are Canadian where absolutely no rc was banned in ages, literally, last drug to be banned was fucking 2c-b in 1994 and the weed is plentiful, cheap and strong, I know I was just lucky to born here in many ways but it was just your whole approach....you're speaking of british vendors....britain...the country with soapbar hash that's 90% dogshit and shoe polish and pma pills everywhere..just not fair.

 

[oxyaddict05]

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

If we played the find the fallacy drinking game, we'd be dead.

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.'

There is something you are not seeing here man. An informed decision is impossible when there is no info to be informed with. Harm-reduction should always play it conservatively when it comes to the unknown.

Also, your argument that unknown potential positives, such as curing AIDS, should be factored into harm-reduction - or even the decision to use - is ridiculous. First of all, it is impossible for us to reach an entity or item's maximum level of understanding. There will always be more potentials.

Could you imagine if a government regulatory agency recalled aspirin because it has not been proven to not cause the growth of a purple 5th limb? But it may be possible! Right?

Or if Sarin nerve gas was ed-regulated/de-Genevad and sold OTC because it could potentially cure ignorance?

And secondly, do I really need any other reason why that is insane logic?

 

[bloodshed344]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

If we played the find the fallacy drinking game, we'd be dead.



There is something you are not seeing here man. An informed decision is impossible when there is no info to be informed with. Harm-reduction should always play it conservatively when it comes to the unknown.

Also, your argument that unknown potential positives, such as curing AIDS, should be factored into harm-reduction - or even the decision to use - is ridiculous. First of all, it is impossible for us to reach an entity or item's maximum level of understanding. There will always be more potentials.

Could you imagine if a government regulatory agency recalled aspirin because it has not been proven to not cause the growth of a purple 5th limb? But it may be possible! Right?

Or if Sarin nerve gas was ed-regulated/de-Genevad and sold OTC because it could potentially cure ignorance?

And secondly, do I really need any other reason why that is insane logic?

Some people have to be martyrs, and it benefits us all. Do not argue.

 

[THE_REAL_OBLIVION]

The only thing I know for sure in RobotRipping's post was that 4-FA had better press and reviews around this place and some others than ALL nbome's.

I hate nbmoe's just like I hate the DOx, DOB (which was never sold online since it was already illegal) almost ruined my life and my love of lsd, as it was sold to me on my second experience of what people simply call "buvard" here (blotter). Nothing but LSD or it's really close cousins like AL-LAD and others should be on blotters, the end, people expect the stuff to be LSD, not a 30+ hours psychedelic amphetamine with all the paranoia that one is assured to feel being strung out for so long or something with an extreme dose curve like the nbome's.

 

[toastmann]

A lot of drugs are deemed "safe" and are a lot of fun, sometimes more so than the "classical" drugs like LSD, amphetamines or MDMA.

 

[F1n1shed]

No, I don't catch your drift at all. Hundreds of people die due to meth induced heart illnesses every week because they think they "dose smartly".

....At least there is a lot of information on meth you tard. Have fun dosing your ridiculously named RC's and dying from some random cause. Go find some real drugs you cunt, instead of ordering online from your moms basement because you have no connections.

 

[brutus]

I'm pulling the plug on this thread since everyone has to resort to name calling and this can't be a civil discussion.

 

[Tommyboy]

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.

See below quote on FDA approval.

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

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.

Well the majority of the acetaminophen related deaths were probably the result of taking doses that were higher than the FDA approved maximum dosage. The saying "the only difference between medicine and poison is the dose" can be applied here. And lets be real here; almost every household in developed countries have Acetaminophen/Paracetamol/APAP in their medicine cabinets, so far more people consume that drug compared to the number of people that take RC's so it's not an accurate comparison when comparing the number of fatalities from these different drugs.

There is something you are not seeing here man. An informed decision is impossible when there is no info to be informed with. Harm-reduction should always play it conservatively when it comes to the unknown.

I completely agree, and this was my train of thought for saying that I can't support the use of this drug from a harm reduction standpoint. I was by no means saying "all FDA drugs are safe, and all RC's are more dangerous" as I even pointed out how there are recalls and lawsuits on FDA approved drugs even with all the human trials done on the drug. I, like you, was saying that there is not enough known about this drug for me to support its use from a harm reduction standpoint.

Edit: Oops, didn't realize this thread was closed until after I posted in it. PM me if you wish to continue this discussion.