Most Recreational/Euphoric/Social Psychedelic?

[Foreigner]

MDA is the most euphoric and heart centred which is what I tend to go for in a social setting. MDMA is also pretty good for that, but I process it too quickly to have a benefit that lasts all night. LSD and shrooms I can't socialize on. There is just too much going on when I do those, unless I do a low dose just to get the euphoric kick with no visuals - but what's the point of that?

Ketamine at lower doses has been good at taking the edge off of social anxiety, but I find it reduces my capacity for high level / intelligent conversation. Plus it is so easy to take too much and end up needing to sit there and stare into space. As an aside, I love the out of body experience created by higher doses.

 

[Shifty38]

6-APB. Fantastic stuff. Tried it with Piracetam. Can't tell if it made that much difference but I experienced constant OEVs - very mild, very cartoon like. Lovely

 

[Contained]

I have done 2C-I, 2C-E, 4-HO-MiPT, LSA, LSD, Psilocybin Mushrooms, 4-HO-DMT (powder), DOC, DPT, DMT, 4-AcO-DMT, Nitrous, and Salvia.
I dont think I could pick a favorite out of all of them, but my top three favorites are DOC, DMT, and LSD.
The most euphoric? DOC
The most social? 4-HO-MiPT
The most recreational? Probably also 4-HO-MiPT

That's an interesting question to think about. Took me a while to actually fit a compound into the different questions.

 

[PepperSocks]

You should try 4-AcO(HO)-DiPT or at leaast read the synopsis by Toad on Erowid. It's quite the ride, and the word 'aphrodisiac' doesn't do it justice

I've only done it twice, 1st time was 20-25mg and the visuals and body energy were out of this world, the second time scared me. I combined it with methylone as a sort of 'flip' and I aborted it, I felt like I was on the verge of a seizure, up until then it was great though.

 

[deficiT]

First:
Which psychedelics have you done?
Mushrooms, LSD, 2c-I, 2c-B(once), 2c-E(once), Salvia (once), DMT, DXM, Ketamine, MXE
Second:
If you have a favorite psychedelic which one is it?
Mushrooms
Third:
Which psychedelic do you find to be the most recreational? Ketamine
The most euphoric? 2c-I
The most social? 2c-B
The classic psychedelics like shrooms and LSD tend to fuck me up so that socializing is kinda hard, dissociatives remove anxiety for me, and the 2c's give me a good bit of euphoria

 

[psood0nym]

First:
Which psychedelics have you done?
Serotomimetic variety: LSD, aMT, mushrooms, DMT, ayahuasca, synthetic psilocin, 4-AcO-DMT, 4-AcO-MiPT, 4-ho-MPT, 4-AcO/ho-DPT, DPT, MET, DET, mescaline cacti, TMA-6, 2C-B, 2C-T-7, 2C-E, 2C-P, DOM, HBWR seeds.

Second:
If you have a favorite psychedelic which one is it?
My favorite experiences are combinations, but as standalone chemicals I suppose it varies by year and mood. 4-ho-DMT, 4-ho-DPT, DPT, and 2C-E have all held the spot at one time or another. The qualities of psychedelic experiences I value most highly are a sense of awe, vivacity, innocence, overwhelming beauty, ego dissolution, and the capacity to incite "visions" (the more “spiritual” or ecstatic effects).

Third:
Which psychedelic do you find to be the most recreational? 2C-B in that it’s light, easygoing, with euphoria that’s present but doesn’t command that much attention. I’ve only done it a few times though, unfortunately. TMA-6 is another contender for the same reasons, but again I’ve only used it a few times.
The most euphoric ? Most definitely some combination, but alone for “non-committal” euphoria I guess aMT.
The most social? Low dose LSD, or 2C-B.

I don’t really turn to psychedelics for the “non-committal” purposes these last three questions are concerned with. It’s much more practical to go with other drug classes for them, IMO.

 

[Splitz]

MDA and MDMA aren't stimulants either, they're entactogens which represent a completely distinct and novel therapeutic class.

Yet they are stimulating?

Also, I thought there was no solid definition of a 'psychedelic drug'. I mean, aMT for example isn't particularly psychedelic. But it is classed as a pychedelic none the less.. And no matter how it's action differs from MDMA or MDA, it feels subjectively fairly similar to those, much more so than it does to the classic psychedelics.

Edit: whoa... I actually did mean to comment on the original post. Drunk...

Psychedelics I've tried:
LSD, mushrooms, LSAs, mescaline, DMT, DXM, MXE, aMT, salvia and an unspecified DOx compound. (I have done MDMA just to clarify).

Favourite:
It's a toss up between LSD and DMT. Personally I'd just say both, they synergise so well.

Most euphoric:
LSD, definitely tops MDMA especially when the dose is low. The euphoria was perhaps not as intense as it was the first time I did MDMA (nothing has been), but it felt deeper somehow and altogether more natural.
Most recreational:
most of the substances I've tried can be 'recreational'. For friendliness and least chance of things becoming 'not fun', perhaps LSD. But aMT is very fun too.
Most social:
I really couldn't say. I try my best not to trip around sober people, although being in a public place doesn't bother me on anything other than disociatives, which only make me feel weird because I know how retarded I will look.

 

[bluedolphin]

I'll play this game.

First:
Which psychedelics have you done?

LSD, LSM, AMT, Morning Glory Seeds, HBWR Seeds, Psilocybe Cubensis Mushrooms, San Pedro cactus tea, Mescaline HCl, 2C-B, 2C-C, 2C-D, 2C-I, 2C-E, 2C-TFM, DOC, DOI, DOM, DiPT, 4-ho-DiPT, 4-ho-MiPT, 4-ho-DMT, 4-aco-MiPT, 4-aco-DMT, DMT, 5-meo-DMT, 5-meo-MiPT, and Ayahuasca

I do not consider MDMA, MDA, MDEA, bk-MDMA, and 4-MMC psychedelic drugs, but I have used those as well.

I also do not consider DXM, Ketamine, and Methoxetamine psychedelic drugs, but I have used those also.

Second:
If you have a favorite psychedelic which one is it?

Psilocybe Mushrooms ... LSD, 4-aco-DMT, 4-ho-MiPT, and DOC also get high marks.

Third:
Which psychedelic do you find to be the most recreational?
The most euphoric?
The most social?

The most recreational psychedelic depends on what you're into. LSD isn't always "recreational", but it sure can be a hell of a lot of fun at the right dose in the right setting.

Most euphoric? Probably mushrooms... right after your ego comes back to life.

Most social? Even on high doses of DOC I find myself able to socialize with confidence. Your mileage may vary.

 

[whataboutheforests]

psychs i've done: LSD, mushrooms, 4-aco-dmt, DMT, 2c-i, 5-meo-dipt, DXM, and MXE (and MDMA and MDA, although the MDA was low dose)

I don't really have a favorite, all of these chemicals are good for different occasions.

The most euphoric: 4-aco-dmt and LSD for sure,

The most recreational: 2c-i, I love the visuals and euphoria and how it's basically just recreational LSD for me. (LSD is far from recreational to me, except in very low doses)

The most social: MXE in lower doses or 2c-i

 

[Roger&Me]

Yet they are stimulating?

If I know how to fly an airplane, does that make me a bird? Just because a drug has stimulating effects, doesn't mean its a stimulant -- you have to look at the pharmacology and medicinal chemistry of the compound and other compounds which are closely related, and classify accordingly.

I don't think that anyone who's tried to refute me on the MDMA classification issue has even taken a look at that paper I mentioned above. David Nichols is one of the world's most recognized experts on psychedelics and entactogens -- and in that paper (which is confirmed by later work) he lays out all the evidence for entactogens representing a novel therapeutic class. Not even to mention, I presented two key pieces of evidence (which can be verified with a simple wikipedia search) that demonstrate the disparity between the pharmacology of psychedelics and entactogens.

I'm not going to argue this point anymore, I recommend anyone who's interested consult the relevant literature for further info. Nichols has published several papers on the issue that present persuasive evidence; and other experts in the field such as Shulgin and Vollenweider agree that the evidence is persuasive. Nobody who studies 5-HT psychedelics at the academic level would consider MDA or MDMA to be psychedelic drugs in the same sense as 3,4-DMA or DOM.

 

[PepperSocks]

TMA-6 is another contender for the same reasons, but again I’ve only used it a few times.

Can you elaborate on this one. It's going to be my first actual trip in a year or two, info on it is scarce and you're a good reporter. [Maybe post it in the B&D TMA series thread]

I've been interested in the TMA series since I started reading about phenethylamines years ago.

As for most recreational, primal, powerlaughing, near nude dancing around a bon-fire experience; 2C-B + MDMA :D

As for single chemical that would fit the bill; 2C-B.

 

[psood0nym]

@Roger&Me: Yeah, I don't really understand all the ongoing insistence suggesting that because some drugs lack the pharmacological profile of 5HT psychedelics and have "psychedelic-like" effects that these other drugs lay an equal claim to belonging in the "psychedelic" category in the same way that LSD or DOI belong. Both laboratory tests of the compounds' physical properties and strong statistical regularities among descriptive terms within subjective reports of 5HT2a agonist experiences make a convincing case for what is a practical and defensible way of speaking about them and what isn't (namely, just what the academic defense indicates is the case). Exceptions don't prove the rule, anecdotes and personal experiences amount to little by themselves, and practical concerns do constitute a justifiable defense of the established understanding since we're talking about objective and subjective properties both qualifying the terms. We can accept that our language for talking about drug categories is not perfect while still making a case for one imperfect way of talking about them over another. It's enough to simply be more reasonable. There needs to be deference to further objective criteria for categorization to have precise or meaningful discussions about these compounds at all. All these "counterpoints" about other compounds laying an equal claim to the category "psychedelic" or "entactogen" are not on an equal rhetorical footing with the received wisdom and add up to little more than handwaving so far as I can see. The explanation for them largely boils down to ignorance and/or poor judgment. If that makes me sound pretentious, well, fine, but that doesn't make me wrong.

Can you elaborate on this one. It's going to be my first actual trip in a year or two, info on it is scarce and you're a good reporter.

It's the closest compound to 2C-B I've used. It's sort of like mescaline in my limited experience but much more non-committal purely fun stuff (perfect for a day at the beach in my estimation). My use of it was by intramuscular injection, BTW (I only had a small amount so I wanted to conserve it for three experiences). I imagine 2C-C may be a better match to 2C-B, but I haven't done it, so I can't speak to that.

 

[bluedom]

You may not be wrong, but it is a very limited worldview, and I say this as an ivory tower academic, and it has a tendency to lead to circularity. I agree with your point that we need to specify what a "psychedelic" means and stick to it, but that specification cannot be limited to the pharmacological information since that is woefully incomplete. We have little idea how these molecules interact with the proteins in the brain in the way do.

I think we have to consider the psychedelic category as a continuum. I wouldn't say MDMA is the SAME as LSD (nor would any poster here I think except for the trolls) but I would say it shares some properties that LSD has (at a molecular level we have a bare understanding and at a phenotypic level we have a better understanding). It is ultimate the properties in terms of human response (presentation) that I think we should use to classify psychedelics, again not just pharmacological data. I would make an analogy to diseases and causes. Disease need to be identified and classified based on the presentation, not on causes (which could lead to circularity).

@Roger&Me: Yeah, I don't really understand all the ongoing insistence suggesting that because some drugs lack the pharmacological profile of 5HT psychedelics and have "psychedelic-like" effects that these other drugs lay an equal claim to belonging in the "psychedelic" category in the same way that LSD or DOI belong. Both laboratory tests of the compounds' physical properties and strong statistical regularities among descriptive terms within subjective reports of 5HT2a agonist experiences make a convincing case for what is a practical and defensible way of speaking about them and what isn't (namely, just what the academic defense indicates is the case). Exceptions don't prove the rule, anecdotes and personal experiences amount to little, and practical concerns do constitute a justifiable defense of the established understanding since we're talking about both objective and subjective properties both qualifying the terms. We can accept that our language for talking about drug categories is not perfect while still making a case for one imperfect way of talking about them over another. It's enough to simply be more reasonable. There needs to deference to further objective criteria for categorization to have precise or meaningful discussions about these compounds at all. All these "counterpoints" about other compounds laying an equal claim to the category "psychedelic" or "entactogen" are not on an equal rhetorical footing with the received wisdom and add up to little more than handwaving so far as I can see. The explanation for them largely boils down to ignorance and/or poor judgment. If that makes me sound pretentious, well, fine, but that doesn't make me wrong.


It's the closest compound to 2C-B I've used. It's sort of like mescaline but much more non-committal purely fun stuff (perfect for a day at the beach in my estimation). I imagine 2C-C may be a better match to 2C-B, but I haven't done it, so I can't speak to that.

 

[psood0nym]

You may not be wrong, but it is a very limited worldview, and I say this as an ivory tower academic, and it has a tendency to lead to circularity. I agree with your point that we need to specify what a "psychedelic" means and stick to it, but that specification cannot be limited to the pharmacological information since that is woefully incomplete. We have little idea how these molecules interact with the proteins in the brain in the way do.

I think we have to consider the psychedelic category as a continuum. I wouldn't say MDMA is the SAME as LSD (nor would any poster here I think except for the trolls) but I would say it shares some properties that LSD has (at a molecular level we have a bare understanding and at a phenotypic level we have a better understanding). It is ultimate the properties in terms of human response (presentation) that I think we should use to classify psychedelics, again not just pharmacological data. I would make an analogy to diseases and causes. Disease need to be identified and classified based on the presentation, not on causes (which could lead to circularity).

I'm not defending a purely pharmacological definition. That would be inadequate as there are 5-HT2a agonists that do not have psychedelic effects (though, in the interest of disclosure I cannot recall if this is in reference to mere affinities or efficacy). I'm defending the pharmacolocial one in concert with the existence of statistical regularities in descriptions of them within subjective reports because that's what we have to work with at the current time. I'm not even really defending a hard and fast definition so much as what is a reasonable way to speak about them given that language needs to categorize to be useful. My point is chiefly a practical one about etiquette. In other words, I don't think my worldview is limited so much as I limit my worldview for the simple sake of preserving the greatest utility in reasonable discussion given the limitations. That, I would argue, is an attempt to liberate our understanding rather than confine it.

 

[Folley]

Yet they are stimulating?

If you've ever had good pure MDA/MDMA, you'll know that it is hardly stimulating in any classical sense of the word... Ive taken ecstasy and been so floored that I literally could not get up

Which psychedelics have you done?

LSD, mushrooms, 5-MeO-DiPT, MDA, salvia and several other unknown chemicals. Including a tab that had either NBOME or DOx

If you have a favorite psychedelic which one is it?

LSD for sure. If I could only do one drug for the rest of my life, it would be LSD

Which psychedelic do you find to be the most recreational?

Probably LSD as well, due to the fact you can dose practically whenever you want without worry, and not to mention it makes everything 10000 times better.

The most euphoric?

I have to say LSD again lol.... Ive had trips that make the best rolls Ive had look like mild buzzes.

The most social?

Now that, would have to be MDA. I dont really consider psychs to be good for social situations at all, they are much better alone. 2C-B sounds pretty good for that though, but I dont think Ive ever had it.

 

[bluedom]

I would agree to a more precise categorical language, but I'd say we should start with the general category of psychedelics and start subclassifying them based on presentation and pharmacology (someone probably has already done this) and then see what comes up. I'd agree that LSD and MDMA wouldn't belong in the subclass of psychedelics.

There are groups screening all the phenylethylamines and tryptamines and other psychedelics against all protein structure in silico to come up with a systems (network) level representation of the compounds and their interaction with various proteins including the transporters. That would provide for the most rigourous/atomic level classification that can then be connected to the presentation.

Your disclosure is interesting. If you had a compound that was broken down by other proteins before it reached a sufficient concentration in the brain to produce psychedelic effects (but would if it could) and right now we had no way to get around that, would you call it "psychedelic"? That's the problem we have to deal with.

I'm not defending a purely pharmacological definition. That would be inadequate as there are 5-HT2a agonists that do not have psychedelic effects (though, in the interest of disclosure I cannot recall if this is in reference to mere affinities or efficacy). I'm defending the pharmacolocial one in concert with the existence of statistical regularities in descriptions of them within subjective reports because that's what we have to work with at the current time. I'm not even really defending a hard and fast definition so much as what is a reasonable way to speak about them given that language needs to categorize to be useful. My point is chiefly a practical one about etiquette. In other words, I don't think my worldview is limited so much as I limit my worldview for the simple sake of preserving the greatest utility in reasonable discussion given the limitations. That, I would argue, is an attempt to liberate our understanding rather than confine it.

 

[bluedolphin]

For whatever it's worth, I agree 100% with Roger&Me on this issue.

There is nothing "psychedelic" at all about an MDMA or MDA experience. Just because drugs can give you visuals does not make them psychedelic.

 

[bluedom]

Well, what is your definition of "psychedelic" then? Enable you to explore one's psyche? All drugs and other things can do that. What else? When is the term "psychedelic" used by nondrug users? One Don't they look at a Grateful Dead hippie t-shirt and say "wow, that's psychedelic?" or "wow, that's trippy." Or have we cooped the term to have a special meaning?

I think we need to realise "psychedelic" is a multidimensional continuum with a subjective quality to it. One person's psychedelic substance might not be another's depending on so many factors...

For whatever it's worth, I agree 100% with Roger&Me on this issue.

There is nothing "psychedelic" at all about an MDMA or MDA experience. Just because drugs can give you visuals does not make them psychedelic.

 

[psood0nym]

I would agree to a more precise categorical language, but I'd say we should start with the general category of psychedelics and start subclassifying them based on presentation and pharmacology (someone probably has already done this) and then see what comes up. I'd agree that LSD and MDMA wouldn't belong in the subclass of psychedelics.

There are groups screening all the phenylethylamines and tryptamines and other psychedelics against all protein structure in silico to come up with a systems (network) level representation of the compounds and their interaction with various proteins including the transporters. That would provide for the most rigourous/atomic level classification that can then be connected to the presentation.

Your disclosure is interesting. If you had a compound that was broken down by other proteins before it reached a sufficient concentration in the brain to produce psychedelic effects (but would if it could) and right now we had no way to get around that, would you call it "psychedelic"? That's the problem we have to deal with.

Your conjecture is noted as a potentially relevant analytical and philosophic point, and I don't discount it insofar as academic discussion is concerned in the least (and to your question I can only respond that "I don't feel confident in giving an answer, especially not now after I've started drinking"). Nevertheless, my argument has to do with what the common understandings of psychedelics people are working with in public drug discussion forums are. It can be expected that a literate non-specialist public is reasonably able to look up a Wikipedia or Erowid article or two and incorporate the basic descriptive and scientific summaries therein into their understanding for categorizing and discussing drugs. However, I don't think it's practical to demand too much more than that when it comes to judging what constitutes reasonable expectations of etiquette in public discussion at this time.

 

[Lady Codone]

First:
Which psychedelics have you done?
--Shrooms, 4-AcO-DMT, dried salvia leaves, 6-Apb, 4-HO-MET (I don't count MDMA/similar drugs, as they're stimulant/entactogens, not psychedelics)

State which ones you've only tried once and if it was a low dose.
--6-Apb at 75 mg. Low dose for some, but caused a lengthy and overpowering trip.

Second:
If you have a favorite psychedelic which one is it?
--4-HO-MET

Third:
Which psychedelic do you find to be the most recreational?
The most euphoric?
The most social?
--4-HO-MET for the win. It has a stimulating edge and euphoria that comes in waves, making it great for socializing and general well-being. Beautiful rainbow-like visuals too

Sorry if I've answered this before and forgot lol. Will be trying LSD for the first time soon, so that may well take 1st place in this list :D