• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |

How does this even happen (Why do people bother using drugs without scales?)

A friend of mine had eyeballed MXE (which I'm guessing is anywhere between 20-50mg) and came ranting to me how shitty a drug it was. I'm pretty sure that MXE is perfect for him so I really want to order a gram and give him a weighed dose just to prove a point
 
As long as one is not combining things, 20mg of methoxetamine will produce negligible effects for most people. 30mg would be a pretty light dose. 40mg is OK but nothing to write home about. 50mg is getting somewhere, but hardly representative of what this substance can do. Go and prove your point and give the dude a carefully measured 75-100mg. I wager that he will skip the Taco Bell for a bit and get the apparatus.
 
That doesn't seem to be the consensus in the MXE thread though, they say it's best to start with 20mg and staggering up from there. Read that 50mg in one go can become quite crazy, which is why I think he thinks it sucks but he'd love it if he were to go a bit slower and cautious instead of just taking bumps as if it were K
 
psood0nym said:
I basically, and for most cases as it regards practical decision making, agree with what you're saying, though in the interest of accuracy I'll add that drug-induced alterations in gene expression might supply a source of longer term harm that extends significantly beyond damage induced during a drug's presence in the body. Of course, even the FDA doesn't necessarily know about or even suspect such mechanisms when it approves many new drugs, so the point is just a factual one and not anything that can reliably inform RC users habits (beyond avoiding ANY new drug whatsoever, psychoactive or not -- though I do think it wise to avoid adding drugs of uncertain or muddled utility to any frequent regimen because of unknown risks).
Click to expand...

Yes, you bring up a good point. And this is what I'm talking about: though we do both agree, you have added a quite-sensible caveat by *postulating an actual mechanism by which 'long-term effects' could be made manifest*. And so it goes, because I am perfectly willing to listen to anybody's concerns without trying to knock those concerns down, but you better have actual ideas to back your shit up with. Saying 'but but but long-term effects!' is a gross generalization even if it were true, and I am not tolerant of bold statements of opinion based on completely unsupported conjecture that are disguised as a statement of fact.

Accordingly, though I find the chances that this – or any mechanism for 'long-twrm harm' – is unlikely in paychedelic RCs, I will elaborate further on your idea of possible genetic factors at play that we are currently unaware of, and could potentially remain unaware of until either negative effects from such genetic mishaps become apparent in our old age or our children are fucked up if the damage extends to germ-line tissue. My addition to this idea is that it may not even be necessary that the DNA itself is altered, because it is becoming more and more apparent that epigenetic factors – that is to say patterns of methylation and acetylation and other -ations that alter the *level of expression* of genes – are every bit as important as genetic factors in determining overall fitness, developmental pathways, phenotype, etc on and on.

This idea of epigenetics as equally important compared to the genes themselves is fascinating for any number of reasons. One such reason that stands out is that in some cases – like morbid obesity (in rats at least) – a parent can actually pass on environmentally- and behaviorally-based traits to their offspring. Put another way, the behavior of an individual, such as grossly overeating, can create changes in the patterns of gene expression. In this case those changes modify the homeostatic state of the animal in question so that it becomes much harder for the animal to shed those extra pounds.

The kicker that makes this pretty mindblowing is that epigenetics changes are actually heritable: the obese mother rat can have offspring who are *predisposed* to obesity themselves – even on a comparably normal diet – because genes that promote fitness are expressed less than in rats born to healthy mothers. Just making up a hypothetical mechanism, this could take the form of a protein or hormone that increases the resting metabolic rate, burning more calories, so partially inhibiting expression of this gene makes the metabolism of the child rat lower than normal, ensuring more calories get stored as adipose tissue (fat).

So in effect you have a genuinely Lamarckian evolutionary mechanism where a trait that *develops during an animals life* instead of existing from birth can be passed to offspring! The catch as far as the totally traditional Lamarckian theory is that these changes are not encoded in the genetic material. But they are heritable nonetheless!

So anyway, ignoring that huge digression, it is possible that certain drugs could modify the patterns of DNA methylation or another similar method of controlling the level of expression of a gene. This wouldn't *necessarily* be as damning as actual changes to the genetic code, because while epigenetic information *can* be heritable it is not *for sure* heritable. On the other hand while this would seem to mitigate some of the danger to our potential offspring should we have used that drug enough to produce such an effect, epigenetics changes are far more easy to induce than genetic changes, and so while the epigenetic changes themselves may or may not be passed on to offspring there would likely be a lot more of them, so probably some of them would get through to any potential children.

Obviously it goes without saying that such mistaken epigenetic changes would likely be harmful to the individual, not just potentially to their kids, but it is important to make the distinction that while it could be very bad for you at least your children would have some level of potential protection, since damaging alterations in gene expression could potentially not manifest strongly until old age, by which time it would be too late to worry about whether you'd pass them on to your kids.

I've brought up shorter versions of the same point you're making in conversations with people that trot out the "but you don't know the long-term harms" nonsense. As soon as I do they try to change the subject or otherwise dismiss it as soon as possible, presumably because they're embarrassed at having their attempt to overextend the influence of what they clearly know nothing about exposed. I think they're just parroting what they've heard other people say without thinking it through. We're all guilty of that in some context or others, but I think we're still right to call someone on their bullshit if they intend that bullshit to be prescriptive or normative (to substantially alter the behavior of others in ways that aren't obviously in their interests).
Click to expand...

Yeah you hit it on the head. It is the preaching, the righteousness, and the disingenuous substitution of unsupported, biased opinion as fact that gets my goat. That's why I included the caveat in my post that there were likely people on Bluelight who could potentially worry about 'long-term effects' in earnest good faith. The individual spouting the nonsense in this thread is not one of them however.
 
WOW Really!
One day you will get bitten in the Ass... if you can afford the drugs you can afford a scale. It's not you who gets hurt it could be a close friend.... 2c-e for example increases in strength by multiple times for ever 2mg over... who really wants to
trip when in the back of your head your hoping you did not take to much... bad set and setting
 
I was able to nasally dose NBOMe's with my eye with no problems.
My friends on the other hand didn't see the apparent dangers, and accidentally sniffed the large pile once, and another didn't feel anything off the few dust specks so he took probably a mg off of a tooth pick. Tsk tsk
Frankly if you don't have a mg scale but do possess even a 0.01g scale then volumetric dosing is by far the easiest and most accurate way.
I don't get how people don't see that
 
.:Holy::Toast:. said:
I was able to nasally dose NBOMe's with my eye with no problems.
My friends on the other hand didn't see the apparent dangers, and accidentally sniffed the large pile once...
Click to expand...

huir.jpg


Eyeballing and scent-testing chemicals active in sub-milligram doses... I've had my LOLs for the day.

No disrespect intended .:Holy::Toast:., I just would never personally attempt that. Even if I was confident in my ability to do so, I would still not be able to enjoy my experience with the thought of possible overdosage hanging over my head.
 
I would never try to get it in one go.
I would titrate up in maybe 5-6 extremely small 50-100ug bumps
And this was before all the reports of deaths came about, it was a stupid idea absolutely and I wouldn't do it now.
I probably won't even use those chemicals again
 
SeenSoFar said:
huir.jpg


Eyeballing and scent-testing chemicals active in sub-milligram doses... I've had my LOLs for the day.

No disrespect intended .:Holy::Toast:., I just would never personally attempt that. Even if I was confident in my ability to do so, I would still not be able to enjoy my experience with the thought of possible overdosage hanging over my head.
Click to expand...

I've did it before with great results. I recommend that no one do this however. DO NOT EYEBALL NBOMEs
 
I actually never use a scale for anything(do have one); not for powder psychedelics either although the only ones of those I use are 4-aco-dmt and 2c-b (and DMT if it counts), which are all very forgiving if you take too much in the sense that there is no real physical danger and some of my best trips were on very high dosages of those (4-aco-dmt and 2c-b). I've seen so much 2c-b that I can sort of guess what would be a nice oral or nasal dose, I'm usually not off by more then 5-8 mg and to me that doesn't really matter anyway.
One thing that I seriously do not recommend anyone ever doing that I've done is eyeballing fentanyl for nasal spray; with a knife take a tiny pinch of powder into an empthy nasal spray and fill up with water; learned from someone else how much is supposed to be on the knife; which is really seriously fucking dangerous :s I've done strange things.
 
I'm waiting on a new scale to come in the mail. My current one gets a little confused when it comes to weighing things under 25mg. I'd prefer to know exactly how much I'm taking of a 2C-X.

I suppose that works too, Folley.
 
I have a scale, use substances active in low doses like fentanyl/3-meo-pcp and for the most part, I only use it once and then no more. After that I usually have a clue how much I should be doing, using the scale just becomes a hassle.

My 0,001 mg scale got knocked on the floor last time I did ketamine and is no longer working, I don't think I am going to buy a new one. Still have a 0.01mg scale anyway.
 
I would have no problem eyeballing a line of coke. But anything like 2Cx I wouldn't want to. I now weigh my MDMA when i make bombs but thats because I tended to err too much on the side of caution when eyeballing them. I now make sure each bomb is 125mg.

Is there a way to gauge the potency of a hit of LSD? I'm aware of Erlich's testing for the molecule, but people say that a hit is 50ug - 150ug with absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever.
 
I always eyeball MXE and DMT. With DMT I stop smoking it when I get the effects I want and tend to put more in my pipe than less and with MXE I take very small bumps until I get the effect I want. I could see someone not having a scale but knowing roughly what a dose of something like 2C-C looks like and making many small piles and then snorting those until desired effects are achieved.
 
Hmm doesn't more of a compound mean that general side effects tend to show up earlier? E.g Mescaline can get you liver damage at doses above a gram. There's just so much of the compound compared to, say, a 2C-x which no one takes 1,500mg of
 
The only safe 2c is b, and that has no real research done on it either.
Click to expand...

Actually, both have had a moderate amount of research conducted on them, and both appear quite safe (lack of obvious mechanisms contributing to neurotoxicity, only mild cardiotoxic concerns, and long track records of high doses (even stupidly high doses) being non-lethal).

ebola
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top