I hope anyone who actually knows and who has any concern or responsability will stay silent on the matter, because phenyltropanes in the hands of moron vendors and moron users will end in tears.
-
N&PD Moderators: Skorpio
Are some novel compounds too addictive, dangerous or exclusive to discuss?
- Thread starter vecktor
- Start date
I hope anyone who actually knows and who has any concern or responsability will stay silent on the matter, because phenyltropanes in the hands of moron vendors and moron users will end in tears. 
Nagelfar
Bluelight Crew
Interest is already piqued universally on the subject and the discussion can be found floating around, so silence isn't any form of harm reduction on this matter.
It always disturbs me when people give vague vacuous responses such as the above quoted, as what is implied is totally unknown. My likely guess is that there are so many potent ones, like how their are potent fentanyl analogues. Well I certainly don't mean those... Ones like Troparil aren't good because it is pretty much flawed in the way MPH is; lacks serotonin affinity.
Are there any phenyltropanes that are from half to three times the "potency" of cocaine, that has better efficacy and etc., this is what is asked, and needs to be asked, so that the good ones can be extracted from the many useless ones..... People seem to have phenethylamine fixations and never reach out to other perfectly viable classes of stimulants; many people get a lot out of cocaine yet little effect out of amphetamine; "stimulants of the future" should account for those types too; but here at bluelight I've noticed horrible stigma against discussion on cocaine analogues, but permutation of every wetdream of MDMA analogue etc.. it baffles me.., the more neurotoxic, longer lasting, releasers, on a harm reduction site, are the focus... ;-/
Nagelfar
Bluelight Crew
I started the "List of cocaine analogues" page myself. ;-) mostly because I was interested in finding which were best among the RTI-/WIN- or others, ;P ...these requirements my requirements would be actually if anyone knew of any tests where test animals self administered over actual cocaine.... has any phenyltropane been self-administered in favor of cocaine in any study?..? That is my main interest...
here's a suggestion, go and find the answers yourself, rather than coming here expecting spoon feeding.
BL's function as I see it is not to provide future drugs of abuse, although that is happening more and more.
To others who have the knowledge, please consider the consequences of disseminating the knowledge to those who don't, and whose motivation is commercial.Last edited:
dread
Bluelighter
Well I can see a harm reduction POV here in the sense that some of these phenyltropanes could be less harmful than actual cocaine, as the benzoic acid ester replaced with a phenyl group should have less cardiotoxic properties. So finding a reasonable substitue for cocaine would be within the realms of harm reduction.
I disagree on this alleged harm reduction aspect and so will not contribute anything further on this matter.
Hammilton
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
Agreed. Just because one can stretch a point and find harm reduction in every single situation doesn't mean that the reduced harm outweighs the potential to cause harm.
This is one of those situations, for sure.
I'm more and more dismayed by the way that discussion of interesting compounds results in rapid commercialization, especially these pseudo herbal products.
Nagelfar
Bluelight Crew
I come here, obviously with knowledge of the substances, wanting reciprocal discussion. Are you interjecting here in this thread just for moderation as a concerned censor of information, may I ask?
My motivation is theoretical, conceptual, nigh philosophical and ponderings that pique my contemplative interest as hobby. I have neither the means nor know how to carry out commercialization of complex chemical substances such as phenyltropanes, though I can certainly see harm reduction in, if it were to be the case as the thread is titled, making future substances which more directly feed the desire for recreation / replace recreational abuse with safer alternatives.... If drugs are future "abused" it can be only that they are superior at creating an effect without side effects or unwanted after effects, which can only be superior in means that results in minimizing unwanted; i.e. damaging effects, in all manner foreseeable. I see them not as in any circumstance worse off for "future" substances whether for getting those off of current drugs of abuse or off to new 'theoretical' ones.
Baffles me as to why they'd post in the thread. I don't really what I call "respect it", but I tolerate it as per civility.
Nibiru
Bluelighter
Tobacco, opium, coca, even sugar cane arguably were all substances with relatively benign medicinal or cultural uses that were usurped and used as addictive substances to make people rich. Some people see chemistry the same way some people historically have seen nature. Honestly, I think that there is as much, if not more harm in keeping information restricted from people on any substance, psychoactive, edible, medicinal, poisonous, radioactive or otherwise. People may abuse information, but they still (should) have a right to that information.
Honestly, I don't think anybody participating in this thread is mining for potential drugs of abuse. I think the people who started and participate in the thread are probably more interested in pharmacology than they are in abusing drugs, judging by the tone. Did you ever think that some of us might be asking questions not because we want to be "spoon-fed" but because we've already done some fruitless searching?
Personally, I probably wouldn't even try half of the shit mentioned in here.Last edited:
Nagelfar
Bluelight Crew
And in my instance, the instance of the somebody to whom had that very line directed, I search every day over for such information: much of which I am not erudite enough to understand if I do come across it and therefore require the back and forth of others to sate my interest..
..and it is my fair assumption that those who are and could or would be the chemists more prone to undertaking the use of creating some nebulous vague substance to be as addictive as possible for a clandestine black market profit, would find it in a published paper likely easier (and from the inside of that field) than some home grown meth cook type.
...I want to make it clear too that I wish not to jump on the moderator who is doing his/her job likely which is to keep the clean the exterior look / interior goings-on of the website, saving it as to be on the continual "up & up" and preserve the very integrity of its existence so that law enforcement from anywhere in the world do not weigh over the basic anglo-phonic tenet of free speech that protects this subject matter by a fine thread only, if even that. I wish not to transgress that premise...
However Pandora's box does not reseal; and if a study, a subjective little report on any subject in the very early infancy of know-how about the chemical in question (which lets face it, we: "we" meaning the best of us in any academic field as members of the human race- are at stage-wise with every last chemical to exist in the universe..) has good knowledge...
..well good knowledge eventually trickles out, and good knowledge that sticks true to the nature of what it is meant to affect, stays true knowledge and only proliferates... it is pointless to try to hold it back by asking people to keep their mouths shut... and if it is fringe knowledge worthy only to hobbyists who know for kicks what the most addictive substance in this particular class of drug chemicals is or happens to be by the subjective opinion of a study or two... keeping it from their interested ears and eyes is just bloated over confident at saving the world bullying keeping one from a legitimate fancy for pharmacology with no ill intentions and likely information that no one with such ill intentions could do anything with....
Who cares if MPH/methylphenidate is administered more by monkeys or what have you than cocaine? I do. I am here to say so. I'd like to know the study. etc etc. I thought it lasted longer (MPH than cocaine), and had less serotonin transporter affinity as well; which were to my knowledge two assets that were counter to what it generally took for animals to be self administering of one substance more often than another... so my hobbyist interest is piqued as to why, etc. and I would not post in this thread in this forum of this website if I hadn't some interest in that regard because obviously it brings me interest.
Nothing more or less. No harm no foul I would hope. I come here to jump into interests and escape the rest of the world; this is not my work or even my under the table job.MurphyClox
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,416
As an idea:
This thread is continuously derailing into the off-topic (but nonetheless IMPORTANT) discussion if some compounds should stay 'secret'. I recommend to open a new thread about this topic (preferably in ADD).
This will ensure that
a) this thread won't get closed due to off-topic discussion, and
b) the issue of keeping certain compounds out of the public focus gets discussed (and I'm convinced that we will see much posting about such a topic).
I kindly request the administration resp. a mod to move all comments related to this issue to a newly created thread. We should talk about the ongoing commerzialisation of desirable agents, yes yes, but not in this thread.
- MurphyMurphyClox
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,416
Commerzialisation vs. Education
NOTE: THIS POST WAS MERGED FROM A DIFFERENT THREAD! Thx to Nuke for the help!
IMPORTANT:
I would be glad if in the context of this topic, there would be no vendors mentioned, as well as no compounds. It's NOT about certain examples but about the overall-question!
This is a long-time debate now but recent development in this respect led me to open a new thread. I'm convinced that it belongs to ADD, as most the recent contributors to this topic are active ADD-contributors, so mods: Plz leave this here.
In short:
The question is if certain compounds should stay undiscussed, to prevent (mainly commercial) abuse. The counter-argument is the frequently cited call for general education, all in the context of harm reduction.
But is it indeed harm reduction if hardly known compounds with a desirable pharmacological profile (broad therapeutic index, low tox., low preipheral side-effects etc.) get dragged into open discussion, just to end up in the brochures of RC vendors after short time.
We've seen this with the synthetic cannabinoids of the AAI-type (JWH-018, JWH-073), we've seen this with several stimulants and just recently, I received a PM that revealed the same development with highly potent synthetic opioids. Does it indeed protect the public if one (bio)assays and subsequently publishes details about new psychoactive landmarks? Or is this only the fastest shortcut to see those compounds first commercially exploited by a handful of people, then followed by some casualties after irresponsible use and finally concluded by governmental prohibition (...in this order), rendering any resonsible handling of those compounds illegal?
I would really like to see this discussed with all arguments presented. I've seen similar discussion created recently in other forums and IMHO the current development of the RC market calls for making a stand.
A current example of this discussion can be found here (starting with Nagelfar's post #287 on page 12).
My personal point of view:
Without disregarding the 'harm reduction'-argument, I honestly think that some compounds must stay secret. It's just due to the laborious effort of a very limited number of people who have taken the time and the monetary effort needed, to obtain (...synth) and assay some substances with a promising prospect. Even if those persons may not have invented said compounds, it was certianly their work and their courage to assay them. With what right is somebody allowed to take those efforts away and make some $$$ out of it (and that's what's happening sionce decades, the business accelerating each year it seems)? Harm can also be avoided as well, if those compounds don't get discussed in the first place at all!
Peace! - MurphyLast edited:
nuke
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,190
Here we can discuss there ethics of such things as highly dangerous or addictive chemical compounds.
See also: How human rats killed the "RC" market (a rant)
pofacedhoe
Bluelight Crew
mephedrone is a prime example of greedy bastards putting the health of a large swathe of the poulation at risk for massive profits with an untested drug that clearly is very cardiotoxic.
the first time i tried it i knew it was dangerous , but i liked it and threw caution to the wind cos i'm reckless like that. not a good move but i have moved on and regained a sense of healthy respect for unkown quantities.
cocaine analogues are of great interest to people looking for a quick buck by cutting them and selling them as coke, its so obvious...
the answer to the thread is clearly a resounding yesMurphyClox
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,416
Thanks!
Damien
Bluelight Crew
I think there is a time and a place for everything.MurphyClox
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,416
^That's as general as one could put it. Sorry Damien, but that didn't help anything (nothing personal though from my side).
I would be glad if you would elaborate your point of view a bit.
As a random example: Would you think that there is a time and place for quinuclidinyl benzilate as well, I mean out of a battlefield?!
- Murphy
Damien
Bluelight Crew
Totally true and fair; sorry about that.
I think ADD's place on Bluelight should be as focused as much possible on providing information about the intricacies of how the body reacts to substances and maybe not so much on contemplating novel substances. Bluelight obviously has a much wider audience and scope of information than other forums who's scope is much more focused and caters to more of the speculative discussions. From my understanding some of these forums have sub-forums which may not be accessible until one becomes more active in the community. I think these are the types of places where discussions regarding "addictive, dangerous or exclusive" substances are best held.