An interesting argument popped up somewhere in this thread. So, mister, you'd choose a substance that was first synthesized 100 years ago with absolutely 0 research done on it and call it a "classical chemical", and something synthesized 10 years ago with tons of peer-reviewed research and double-blind studies done a "research chemical"?
The term "research chemical" is usually applied to substances that have not been scientifically researched properly to assess the risks and benefits of their use, regardless of their first synth date. Because such information is unavailable, it usually is a gamble to take "research chemicals", as you're pretty much being a part of the research.
The problem with research cannabinoids is that they're, first, usually full agonists, and second, very potent. Just because people are reckless with their dosing and take ridiculous amounts (either intentionally or not) doesn't say anything about the substance's safety if used appropriately. If people were injecting fentanyl by the tens of milligrams, you'd be amazed as well.
PS and yeah, being a moderator doesn't mean jack. Moderators are just people who try to maintain stability and improve their forums.
The compounds I listed that, Felonious Monk, listedas research chemicals have had loads of peer review research. Those compounds were 4-mmc, 2-cb, 2-ci, Ill concede that Mephedrone has only become popular in the last few years but has been studied extensively. RC's like 6-apbd which was invented by David E Nicols as
non-neurotoxic analog of MDMA is another good example that shows not all RC's can be lumped in to the same basket.
You have others like Nbomes and bromo-dragonfly which are active in the sub mg range and have caused deaths such as Haupt-RC (now defunct) who mislabeled bromo-dragonfly as 2-cb fly and was found dead in his bed
My point was to show that not all compounds that are classed as new have no research done on them, and that people have enjoyed them and lived without any adverse affects. I think this is a fair comment and I stand by my posts considering this was posted....
Research chemicals are garbage; but some people want to become lab rats.
and then this.......
LOL yeah. "This drug was literally just invented a couple years ago, but don't worry, it's completely safe!"
Both by, Felonious Monk, and both statements are misleading and have no HR value. No offence to you, Felonious Monk, I just thought there should be more information posted, specially when posting the quotes above.
Please don't take me the wrong way, I think you Mods do an invaluable, and at times, thankless job AND in your own time. Without you guys BL would be a mess
In saying that, If I think the info posted is incorrect or could be added to, I will post regardless of the posters status. Look at the posts above from all of us, they have now expanded to include, hopefully, more valuable info that could possibly make someone think twice about ingesting a potentially dangerous chemical.
