• 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

Endegenous primary amide?

Lux, was that directed at me? Or am I getting it wrong?
Anyways, I happen to agree with your side of the argument (fo sheezy), but find it interesting to look at the merits of the other anyway. Take "Spice", for example...

(as for anm endogenous primary amide, I realllyyy don't think so)
 
No, guessing from his feelings on the subject as mentioned before, I'm assuming what m_s had to say.

i feel like I put a lot of words in your mouth man!
 
directed at FG as simply I am calling BS and not sure whteher he is affiliated with such outfits or not but the argument of not revealing a natural endogenous substrate due to law enforcement issues is BUNK...it is as stated to maximize profits by retaining intellectual secrecy despite indeed it than does not allow the user full knowledge of what is in the product and while the argument can be made do not use it some who have wish to make the choice for whatever reason to not directly break the law will be in a place to use poor judgment that perhaps if given all the facts they may at least than have greater sense of discretion though either way do not give me the BS it is for the reason of keeping law away...that is garbage
 
Why do my threads either turn into descriptions of marshmallow based drugs or long essays on the ethics of not disclosing ingredients :(. I am magnet to off topic responses!
 
Uh,,,because you asked what is in this and notably we have in essense told you it is likely spiked with a synthetic CB1 agonist, but no one can know for sure and also explained to you the reason why that indeed likely that is the case as such and why it is the case that the info you got otherwise was misleading

in essence you received by such being noted a very detailed answer for what is what with such a product and why what is in there will not likely be knowable unless someone coughs up big bucks to run extensive assays

those who know are obviously not telling you and you have been shown the real reason why and why it is very likely what is indicated may be pure BS

sheeeshh....
 
Ham-milton said:
So you've not only found a novel chem, but you've managed to find it without any prior research done?

bullshit.

I might believe it if you said that you wouldn't find anything about that exact chem (perhaps a minor reference in a larger paper), but to claim that it represents a class entirely unknown in the literature is absolutely bullshit.

It's lies to obfuscate the fact that you're spreading a chem and not telling anyone what it is. You could be causing cancer or be selling a horrible teratogenic drug a la thalidomide, or something that is likely to cause anaphalaxis- and if any of these people need medical attention they have fucking clue what to say they've taken.

It's profiteering on the those who desire to abide by the law, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Ham, I don't spread any chems to anyone.

I didn't make any claims to 'finding a novel chem without prior research done'. I just said that if one were to type into a search engine the name of the substances involved, nothing would come back.
 
Uh,,,because you asked what is in this and notably we have in essense told you it is likely spiked with a synthetic CB1 agonist, but no one can know for sure and also explained to you the reason why that indeed likely that is the case as such and why it is the case that the info you got otherwise was misleading

in essence you received by such being noted a very detailed answer for what is what with such a product and why what is in there will not likely be knowable unless someone coughs up big bucks to run extensive assays

those who know are obviously not telling you and you have been shown the real reason why and why it is very likely what is indicated may be pure BS

sheeeshh....
Click to expand...

Hehehe, I knew the CB1 thing before, but thanks to all who replied anyway.
I was joking in the post you replied to, it was merely a flippant remark (oh the joys of tone on the internet) relax, you don't have to offer condescending explanations in these situations, I'll make sure to pepper my posts with smilies in future.
I'll even add a disclaimer if you like?
Heh, take it easy :D.
 
The answer is oleamide, along with jwh-018.

The question is why???

people who've tried jwh-018 on it's own claim it not to be that different from these smoking blends.


Did they throw in the oleamide as a red herring or is it actually having an effect....hmmmm.

btw, the brands concerned are "smoke" and "skunk". no oleamide in spice.

This stuff is incredibly popular where i'm from. I really hope (from a public health point of view) that nothing in these blends ends up causing major problems down the line.

As i'm sure you're aware, history is littered with examples of people assuming what are now known as dangerous substances to be safe. Ususually resulting in disastrous consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top