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

is one and a half RC tabs dangerous?

^Shit I didn't even notice he'd mentioned his age. Yeah OP, steer clear of drugs for a while, especially ones as under researched and dangerous as NBOMe tabs.
 
Agreed. A 15-year old taking any amount of NBOME drugs is a recipe for disaster.
 
I will agree that you should not be doing psychedelic drugs at that age. Smoke a joint if you really have to get high. Research chemicals in particular are extremely dangerous if not taken very seriously. be careful, and never take something that you dont know what it is for sure. These new 2c-x analogues can be risky.
 
Aye aye aye. Shut up lol jk. Nah the two times i did them they really helped me. Ive been dreaming about finally trying a psychelic for a very long time. Now that i have it stopped my lifelong depression plus it showed me the invisble path B-)
 
Lifelong depression? You are 15 years old. Life just barely has the tip in.
Instead of playing with your psyche, why not see a psychologist? Not trying to sound rude, but a psychologist or psychiatrist would benifit you more at this age than going through psychedelic journey. Especially RC's. There's honestly more cons that outweigh the pros about RC's at the moment. Not much research has been done on them and their possible long term effects.
 
Plurple said:
..........................a psychologist or psychiatrist would benifit (sic) you more at this age than going through psychedelic journey.
Click to expand...

Evidence? Psychiatrists in the West are highly likely to prescribe more toxic and noxious substances than traditional psychedelics. Psychologists in my experience are usually pretty conventional people who follow the current orthodoxy as far a psychological theory goes.

A psychotherapist who uses an approach that appeals to your imagination may be a better bet - especially if you wish to explore the depths of your imagination and mind (e.g. Transpersonal, Jungian, psychodynamic, etc.)

In some South American countries such as Ecuador, Ayahuasca is given to very young children, so the warning about damaging or stunting "developing brains" does not necessarily hold true. I do accept that in these countries there is a whole tradition and culture in which these experiences are embedded and that they do not naturally exist in Western cultures and therefore a certain backdrop which gives meaning to the experience is missing. But why should an assumption be made that a psychedelic experience is deleterious to the younger person's brain/psyche or whatever.

I'm not saying there are not cautions that need to be observed, but just that risk-aversiveness itself needs to be cautioned against. Remember, the original pioneers (e.g. Huxley et al) of psychedelics cautioned against the "ordinary man" being given access to these substances - they were to be reserved for the "brightest and the best". That would have denied many of the people who frequent this forum and offer great wisdom on the subject.
 
^I'd like to see sources on South American cultures giving their children Ayahuasca. That sounds absurd.
 
Ceremonial Ayahuasca use is far different to recreational 25i-NBOMe use however.
 
That said, OP seems to be dead set on taking the blotter, so we better make sure he does it safely. We can't guess whatever he is taking, but it being an NBxx makes sense. In that case you have to take precautions with regards to safety:

1. Don't be alone! If something goes wrong you want someone there to help you out

2. Make sure you're not on any medication

3. Start small! You could try taking half a blotter orally, to see if it might be a lysergamide.

4. If that doesn't work, do the other half sublingually/bucally by placing it on your gum. Most NBxx blotters are overdosed, don't take a full one at first, it could be dangerous! I'd start even lower, like a quarter maybe. Nbomes are really active.

Remember, you can always take more, not less! Also note than NBxx tolerance lasts 2 weeks, so wait that long between trials

5. Stay hydrated, if there's heavy vasoconstriction take magnesium and if something goes wrong don't be hesitant to go to the hospital.

Take care OP. May I suggest you read up on the various RCs and get your hands on some of the safer ones yourself. You're probably being ripped off on price alone and you can make sure you're safe. If you have any questions you know where to find us :)
 
kidklmx said:
You could try taking half a blotter orally, to see if it might be a lysergamide.
Click to expand...

Iirc there have been some reports of NBxx being orally active, so one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's a lysergamide because of that.
 
I keep wondering where you guys are getting this from, the halogenated NBOMes definitely aren't active orally. The NBOHs don't seem to be either, so maybe the NBFs or the alkyls are active orally but I doubt it.
 
"Definitely aren't orally active" is a pretty strong statement. Did you mean to say "aren't orally active IME"?

Here are two quotes from the stickied NBOMe warning thread.

pupnik said:
dropped 300mics 25-c-nboh @ 5:30pm with a drink of gingerale
quite spaced out with some visuals by 6:00pm, not particularly slower than just chewing and sucking on the blotter.
I only miss the numbing of my tongue (really)
otherwise I would not dare to swallow a whole one or several
the idea that it is not orally (gut) active is a fallacy.

please remove the hope that you can swallow the blotters and wait to see if you have acid. NBOH or nbome will get you just as stoned if you swallow it as if you gum it, or chew it. or try not to swallow saliva (another myth)
Click to expand...

zn13bt said:
I found the thread I was thinking of: NBOMe oral activity experiment.

I took 600ug of 25I about 1:30 ago, liquid dose added to some Gatorade. Holy moly was it bitter, but the taste went away pretty quickly. Nothing happened for the first hour (other than having to go poo), so then I started eating a roast-beef sandwich, and within 10 minutes I started to feel some stimulation and body tingles. I'm at a definite +2 now, and getting some mild visuals, so it's surely not placebo.

I'm pleasantly surprised, but also a little dismayed that a belief like "NBOMes are orally inactive" can persist for so long without anybody verifying it (myself included).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
In my experience, and which was the reason I stopped doing NBOMes sublingually, at some point I just had to swallow and if I did that too much the same dose wouldn't even be active. "Not swallowing saliva" is certainly not a myth. But apparently, YMMV even here. Not to distrust zn13bt at all, but for me 600ug of 25i would have me affected pretty intensely, much further than a ++, couldn't some material have absorbed sublingually? I think oral inactivity was noted right here on BL and people started experimenting with cyclodextrin and stuff like that.

I can't speak of NBOH because I haven't tried it. (nor do I plan to)
 
EntheoDjinn said:
Evidence? Psychiatrists in the West are highly likely to prescribe more toxic and noxious substances than traditional psychedelics. Psychologists in my experience are usually pretty conventional people who follow the current orthodoxy as far a psychological theory goes.

A psychotherapist who uses an approach that appeals to your imagination may be a better bet - especially if you wish to explore the depths of your imagination and mind (e.g. Transpersonal, Jungian, psychodynamic, etc.)

In some South American countries such as Ecuador, Ayahuasca is given to very young children, so the warning about damaging or stunting "developing brains" does not necessarily hold true. I do accept that in these countries there is a whole tradition and culture in which these experiences are embedded and that they do not naturally exist in Western cultures and therefore a certain backdrop which gives meaning to the experience is missing. But why should an assumption be made that a psychedelic experience is deleterious to the younger person's brain/psyche or whatever.

I'm not saying there are not cautions that need to be observed, but just that risk-aversiveness itself needs to be cautioned against. Remember, the original pioneers (e.g. Huxley et al) of psychedelics cautioned against the "ordinary man" being given access to these substances - they were to be reserved for the "brightest and the best". That would have denied many of the people who frequent this forum and offer great wisdom on the subject.
Click to expand...

All drugs are toxic if not used properly. I am not a fan of prescribing psychoactive compounds to minors, but this is for the same reason why you dont want to give them psychedelics. The drugs they prescribe actually help a lot of people. The problem is when they prescribe them instead of taking the time to listen to their problems and work through them with out drugs first. So if you think that taking amphetamines and antidepressants are toxic and noxious, there is no real evidence that psychedelics would not fit into a similar category if used improperly.

I have seen that they give children Ayahuasca, however, that does not mean that it is not dangerous and potentially harmful to natural psychological development, or even just the maturation of brain chemistry. Indians used and smoked tobacco for thousands of years, and they got cancer. Just because something has been used by indigenous cultures for a long time does not make it safe. This assumption is made because while a childs brain is developing, their brain chemistry is not the same as a normal adults. They have issues with impulse control, reasoning, rational thought, empathy, and many other feelings adults take for granted. If you start throwing in compounds that interfere with serotonin signalling and metabolism, it is not all that far fetched to think this can have effects on the developing brain. The effects on drugs on developing nervous tissue is not with out precedent; consumption of alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and nicotine are widely known to interfere with brain development in the fetus. Adolescent brain development is another phase in this process and is when much of our personality is cemented.

Would you want to give your 5, 8, 10, or 15 year old child Ayahuasca or LSD? How about when they have issues with depression or anxiety? Or even just the normal teenaged angst? Most rational people would say any potential reward is not worth the risk. I would even go so far to say that a child does not have the capacity for rational mature thought to properly integrate a challenging psychedelic experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top