RCs New cannabinoid, MDMB-CHMINACA
- Thread starter roi
- Start date
cousinskeeter
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
- Messages
- 231
Interesting. I know that there are plenty of people with zero access to marijuana or are on probation etc. Disregarding those folks... isnt the risk of dying/kidney failure/cancer/whatever from these literally unknown canabinoids much bigger than the risk of getting caught with some pot? I would rather be in jail then on dialysis. Didn't some people even claim the old school JWH's may have been pretty harmful? I just pray a 75 person death toll doesnt happen in the USA because a shit storm will follow.
roi
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 1,545
http://www.fskn.gov.ru/includes/periodics/news/2015/0317/205035975/detail.shtml
MDMB-FUBINACA has caused at least 1000 hospitalizations and 40 deaths in Russia so far.
MDMB-CHMINACA should be even more potent. Hope it won't ever be widely available =/
MDMB-FUBINACA has caused at least 1000 hospitalizations and 40 deaths in Russia so far.
MDMB-CHMINACA should be even more potent. Hope it won't ever be widely available =/
Isochromium
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2013
- Messages
- 59
Excellent. It's got the potency. That lovely molecule will be a perfect tool.
roi
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 1,545
Isochromium
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2013
- Messages
- 59
Terror is an illusion for the living.
MDMB-CHMINACA and MDMB-FUBINACA are medicines to provide the opposite - permanent relief.
MDMB-CHMINACA and MDMB-FUBINACA are medicines to provide the opposite - permanent relief.
speedballs_over
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 651
roi;Look at the US said:
Last edited:
totesmegoats
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2015
- Messages
- 4
seems like these MDMB derivatives are generally more dangerous, 40 deaths reported as of March 2015 for MDMB-FUBINACA.
Isochromium
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2013
- Messages
- 59
It seems like the MDMB-series of Cannabinoids is generally more efficient than previous series' at liquidating the incompetent who use it without measuring their doses or use unknown herbal mixtures.
This excellent process like all selection processes leads to positive progress toward a more evolved human species by the elimination of incompetent genotypes.
Such a refreshingly-strong selective process is sorely needed in these days of lax selection-pressure.
This excellent process like all selection processes leads to positive progress toward a more evolved human species by the elimination of incompetent genotypes.
Such a refreshingly-strong selective process is sorely needed in these days of lax selection-pressure.
Very interesting substance, and I finally found it! :D I think I'll test it soon, as my down-regulated receptors will back to norm.
BTW small offtopic: https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/3g061a/strychnine_my_experiences/
BTW small offtopic: https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/3g061a/strychnine_my_experiences/
Isochromium
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2013
- Messages
- 59
Cannabinoid Yellow Journalism
Presstitute
And it's really? Good or bad depends on perspective and so much else.
These news articles are excellent reports so far as the lying yellow-journalism of US presstitute corporate media can produce.
Here are some recent articles on the very topic you mention:
NTY: Potent ‘Spice’ Drug Fuels Rise in Visits to Emergency Room (April 24, 2015)
Lighthouse Recovery Institute: Synthetic Marijuana is Back (May 6, 2015)
"There were around 1,000 calls to poison control centers about negative reactions to synthetic marijuana during the first three weeks of April."
"This more than doubles the total number of calls poison control centers received during January, February, and March."
"Reports of negative reactions to spice are occurring four times more frequently than they occurred in 2014."
"One hospital in Louisiana saw over 100 spice related admissions in February alone."
"Speaking of hospital visits, upwards of 400 Mississippi residents visited the ER in April due to spice."
The laughable 'experts' with their access to premium analytic equipment ie. HPLC, LC-MS and HNMR cannot with all their funds, official equipment and certified expertise tell us if the cause of this recent increase in Cannabinoid user hospitalizations is due to non-CB-receptor toxicity (perhaps those 'particularly dangerous formulations'), 'greater use' or perhaps something unmentioned in the article: higher potency leading to easier ODs. Certainly the articles mention that these synthetic Cannabinoids are much more potent than natural Marijuana, but synthetic Cannabinoids have been on the market for many years and hyperpotent Cannabinoids have also been around since the days of AM-2201. How does this explain the recent increase in hospitalizations? I would like to know but none of the articles explains why.
I wonder how these 'experts' can continue to justify their six-figure taxpayer / HMO-funded incomes when all that issues forth from their fat lips are such vague statements?
Perhaps because these media reports are not intended to help protect users, help inform hospitals or anything similar.
These reports are intended to increase hysteria enough to provide US legislators with more opportunities to criminalize the US population for making free choices about their bodies.
I would not trust my life or health to these 'experts' or the corporate media reports of their vague, unfounded suppositions.
These Cannabinoid reports in the lapdog US corporate media are as opaque as the contents of those devilish packets of Spice and even more dangerously misleading.
I am able to winnow only two take-home conclusions from these media reports:
Perhaps there may be a connection between these Cannabinoid deaths and the consistent content or lack thereof in media reportage of same - not just recent articles but the entire consistent history of corporate media reports on Cannabinoids.
Presstitute
And it's really? Good or bad depends on perspective and so much else.
These news articles are excellent reports so far as the lying yellow-journalism of US presstitute corporate media can produce.
Here are some recent articles on the very topic you mention:
NTY: Potent ‘Spice’ Drug Fuels Rise in Visits to Emergency Room (April 24, 2015)
"Experts were unsure whether the increase this month in spice-related emergencies reflected greater use of the drug or a particularly dangerous formulation. Dr. Ryan said a large portion of cases appeared to involve a form called mab-chminaca."
Lighthouse Recovery Institute: Synthetic Marijuana is Back (May 6, 2015)
"There were around 1,000 calls to poison control centers about negative reactions to synthetic marijuana during the first three weeks of April."
"This more than doubles the total number of calls poison control centers received during January, February, and March."
"Reports of negative reactions to spice are occurring four times more frequently than they occurred in 2014."
"One hospital in Louisiana saw over 100 spice related admissions in February alone."
"Speaking of hospital visits, upwards of 400 Mississippi residents visited the ER in April due to spice."
Huffington Post: There's Been A Sudden, Alarming Spike In Hospitalizations Caused By Synthetic Marijuana (May 8, 2015)
"A potential common link in last month's spike is a compound called MAB-CHMINACA, Marcus told The Associated Press in an interview. The compound was found during tests of synthetic marijuana seized by police in several states where people became ill, he said."
The laughable 'experts' with their access to premium analytic equipment ie. HPLC, LC-MS and HNMR cannot with all their funds, official equipment and certified expertise tell us if the cause of this recent increase in Cannabinoid user hospitalizations is due to non-CB-receptor toxicity (perhaps those 'particularly dangerous formulations'), 'greater use' or perhaps something unmentioned in the article: higher potency leading to easier ODs. Certainly the articles mention that these synthetic Cannabinoids are much more potent than natural Marijuana, but synthetic Cannabinoids have been on the market for many years and hyperpotent Cannabinoids have also been around since the days of AM-2201. How does this explain the recent increase in hospitalizations? I would like to know but none of the articles explains why.
I wonder how these 'experts' can continue to justify their six-figure taxpayer / HMO-funded incomes when all that issues forth from their fat lips are such vague statements?
Perhaps because these media reports are not intended to help protect users, help inform hospitals or anything similar.
These reports are intended to increase hysteria enough to provide US legislators with more opportunities to criminalize the US population for making free choices about their bodies.
I would not trust my life or health to these 'experts' or the corporate media reports of their vague, unfounded suppositions.
These Cannabinoid reports in the lapdog US corporate media are as opaque as the contents of those devilish packets of Spice and even more dangerously misleading.
I am able to winnow only two take-home conclusions from these media reports:
1. Cannabinoid users appear to be slow learners. High-potency synthetic Cannabinoids have been in the retail market for some time - ever since the days of AM-2201 in fact - and ODs continue; even increasing recently in New York as the first media report's title implies.
2. If I was ever fool enough to buy a crappy CHMINACA - which I will never buy not due to unwarranted media-hyped fears of boogeyman-toxicities but due to the CHMINACAs producing poor-quality effects - I would obtain the most high for my dollar by purchasing MAB-CHMINACA. The only value in such reports is that MAB-CHMINACA makes a good chemical weapon. I venture to guess this may be due to MAB-CHMINACA's higher potency relative to other synthetic Cannabinoids but the media reports neither confirm nor deny this guess.
If I were to rely on media reportage of synthetic Cannabinoids to make decisions about my body I would be so underinformed and mal-informed that I would be lucky to survive a week. Is it any wonder then that Cannabinoid deaths continue to occur and even increase?2. If I was ever fool enough to buy a crappy CHMINACA - which I will never buy not due to unwarranted media-hyped fears of boogeyman-toxicities but due to the CHMINACAs producing poor-quality effects - I would obtain the most high for my dollar by purchasing MAB-CHMINACA. The only value in such reports is that MAB-CHMINACA makes a good chemical weapon. I venture to guess this may be due to MAB-CHMINACA's higher potency relative to other synthetic Cannabinoids but the media reports neither confirm nor deny this guess.
Perhaps there may be a connection between these Cannabinoid deaths and the consistent content or lack thereof in media reportage of same - not just recent articles but the entire consistent history of corporate media reports on Cannabinoids.
Last edited:
roi
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 1,545
Isochromium
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2013
- Messages
- 59
Terminal Run: Part One
And if you think the Benzyl is potent then you haven't felt what the para-Fluoro substitution on that Benzyl does for both overall potency and CB1 activity.
That single para-Fluoro substitution on the Benzyl turns MDMB-CHMINACA into the stronger MDMB-FUBINACA which is already showing a superior kill-record:
MDMB-FUBINACA / MDMB(N)-Bz-F / FUB-MDMB
Methyl 2-({1-[(4-fluorobenzyl)methyl]-1H-indazol-3-yl}formamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate
As I wrote in the Rational Cannabinoid Design: From Intoxicant to Chemical Weapon thread: Electronegative substitutions (ie. Fluorination) at the terminus of either the attached pentyl chain or the corresponding cyclic function such as Cyclohexyl or Benzyl enormously increase both overall potency and CB1-selectivity.
MDMB-FUBINACA is not the end of this road: it is only one-third of the way at best to our Final Destination.
The end of this road is maximum electronegativity at the para/terminus. Terminal electronegativity.
Fluorine is already the most electronegative element in this Universe so the only way to increase the terminal [no pun intended] electronegativity of a single Fluoro-substituted Cannabinoid is to add more Fluoro-substitutions but the limit to these substitutions is how many can be accomplished at the terminal end. Non-terminal Fluoro-substitutions simply draw electrons back the opposite way - working against the goal of drawing as much electron pressure as possible to the terminal end of the Pentyl/cyclic function. At some point the further addition of Trifluoromethyl groups at the para position will result in a net loss of CB-receptor activation potency due to steric hindrance.
That is achieved for the following cases - please ignore any mistakes on the correspondence between chemical names and today's bizarre synthetic Cannabinoid naming unconventions - the goal is elucidation of structure-function activity relationships:
1. Pentyl Chain: Terminal para-Trifluorination: As an example, below is 5F-AKB48 and its para-Trifluoro analog whose potency far exceeds its parent with bonus higher CB1 activity. I apologize for the structural rape of this old and popular Cannabinoid but it has to be done for the sake of a future:
Parent Compound: 5F-AKB48: 1-(5-Fluoropentyl)-N-(tricyclo[3.3.1.1~3,7~]dec-1-yl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
Trifluoro Analog: 5TFM-AKB48: 1-(5-Trifluoropentyl)-N-(tricyclo[3.3.1.1~3,7~]dec-1-yl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide:
5TFM-AKB48
TFMUB-AKB48
2. Cyclohexyl Function: para-Difluorination: Cyclohexyls are saturated having two Hydrogens on each Carbon so there is room for one more para-Fluoro substitution.
3. Cyclohexyl Function: Additive para-Trifluoromethylation: To maximize terminal electronegativity requires the substitution of Trifluoromethyls for both para-Hydrogens. It should be noted that a double Trifluoromethyl substitution in addition to maximizing terminal electronegativity also introduces significant bulk which could cause steric hindrance at that location. In-vivo testing will be required to determine whether this added bulk causes a net potency losee or gain despite the increased electronegativity.
Parent Compound: 4F-MDMB-CHMINACA (MDMB N-BZ-F)
Ditrifluoromethyl Analog: 4DTFM-MDMB-CHMINACA (4DTFM-MDMB N-BZ-F):
5. Benzyl Function: Additive para-Trifluoromethylation: The Benzyl function is limited to a single para-Hydrogen Fluoro-substitution thus it has half the number of higher-electronegativity Fluoro-analogues as corresponding Cyclohexyls do.
Parent Compound: AB-FUBINACA: N-[(1S)-1-(Aminocarbonyl)-2-methylpropyl]-1-[(4-fluorophenyl)methyl]-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
Trifluoromethyl Analog: AB-TFMUBINACA: N-[(1S)-1-(Aminocarbonyl)-2-methylpropyl]-1-[(4-trifluoromethylphenyl)methyl]-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide:
AB-TFMUBINACA
A predictable potency-independent and rather ugly result of these further electronegative Fluoro-substitutions is the increase of Fluorotoxicity in users who heat/thermal-vaporize/burn the molecules. At maximum Fluorination the Fluorotoxicity is doubled, tripled or hexed in the case of additive double para-Trifluoromethylation which introduces two Trifluoromethyl groups providing six Fluorine atoms per molecule.
And if you think the Benzyl is potent then you haven't felt what the para-Fluoro substitution on that Benzyl does for both overall potency and CB1 activity.
That single para-Fluoro substitution on the Benzyl turns MDMB-CHMINACA into the stronger MDMB-FUBINACA which is already showing a superior kill-record:
MDMB-FUBINACA / MDMB(N)-Bz-F / FUB-MDMB
Methyl 2-({1-[(4-fluorobenzyl)methyl]-1H-indazol-3-yl}formamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate
As I wrote in the Rational Cannabinoid Design: From Intoxicant to Chemical Weapon thread: Electronegative substitutions (ie. Fluorination) at the terminus of either the attached pentyl chain or the corresponding cyclic function such as Cyclohexyl or Benzyl enormously increase both overall potency and CB1-selectivity.
MDMB-FUBINACA is not the end of this road: it is only one-third of the way at best to our Final Destination.
The end of this road is maximum electronegativity at the para/terminus. Terminal electronegativity.
Fluorine is already the most electronegative element in this Universe so the only way to increase the terminal [no pun intended] electronegativity of a single Fluoro-substituted Cannabinoid is to add more Fluoro-substitutions but the limit to these substitutions is how many can be accomplished at the terminal end. Non-terminal Fluoro-substitutions simply draw electrons back the opposite way - working against the goal of drawing as much electron pressure as possible to the terminal end of the Pentyl/cyclic function. At some point the further addition of Trifluoromethyl groups at the para position will result in a net loss of CB-receptor activation potency due to steric hindrance.
That is achieved for the following cases - please ignore any mistakes on the correspondence between chemical names and today's bizarre synthetic Cannabinoid naming unconventions - the goal is elucidation of structure-function activity relationships:
1. Pentyl Chain: Terminal para-Trifluorination: As an example, below is 5F-AKB48 and its para-Trifluoro analog whose potency far exceeds its parent with bonus higher CB1 activity. I apologize for the structural rape of this old and popular Cannabinoid but it has to be done for the sake of a future:
Parent Compound: 5F-AKB48: 1-(5-Fluoropentyl)-N-(tricyclo[3.3.1.1~3,7~]dec-1-yl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
Trifluoro Analog: 5TFM-AKB48: 1-(5-Trifluoropentyl)-N-(tricyclo[3.3.1.1~3,7~]dec-1-yl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide:
5TFM-AKB48
Parent Compound: FUB-AKB48 (FUB-APINACA): N-(adamantan-1-yl)-1-[(4-fluorophenyl)methyl]-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
Trifluoro Analog: TFMUB-AKB48 (TFMUB-APINACA): N-(adamantan-1-yl)-1-[(4-trifluoromethylphenyl)methyl]-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide:
Trifluoro Analog: TFMUB-AKB48 (TFMUB-APINACA): N-(adamantan-1-yl)-1-[(4-trifluoromethylphenyl)methyl]-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide:
TFMUB-AKB48
2. Cyclohexyl Function: para-Difluorination: Cyclohexyls are saturated having two Hydrogens on each Carbon so there is room for one more para-Fluoro substitution.
Parent Compound: 4F-MDMB-CHMINACA (MDMB N-BZ-F)
Difluoro Analog: 4DF-MDMB-CHMINACA (4DF-MDMB N-BZ-F):
3. Cyclohexyl Function: Additive para-Trifluoromethylation: To maximize terminal electronegativity requires the substitution of Trifluoromethyls for both para-Hydrogens. It should be noted that a double Trifluoromethyl substitution in addition to maximizing terminal electronegativity also introduces significant bulk which could cause steric hindrance at that location. In-vivo testing will be required to determine whether this added bulk causes a net potency losee or gain despite the increased electronegativity.
Parent Compound: 4F-MDMB-CHMINACA (MDMB N-BZ-F)
Trifluoro Analog: 4TFM-MDMB-CHMINACA (4TFM-MDMB N-BZ-F):
4. Cyclohexyl Function: Additive Double para-Trifluoromethylation: To maximize terminal electronegativity requires the substitution of Trifluoromethyls for both para-Hydrogens. It should be noted that a double Trifluoromethyl substitution in addition to maximizing terminal electronegativity also introduces significant bulk which could cause steric hindrance at that location. In-vivo testing will be required to determine whether this added bulk causes a net potency loss or gain despite the increased electronegativity.
Parent Compound: 4F-MDMB-CHMINACA (MDMB N-BZ-F)
Ditrifluoromethyl Analog: 4DTFM-MDMB-CHMINACA (4DTFM-MDMB N-BZ-F):
5. Benzyl Function: Additive para-Trifluoromethylation: The Benzyl function is limited to a single para-Hydrogen Fluoro-substitution thus it has half the number of higher-electronegativity Fluoro-analogues as corresponding Cyclohexyls do.
Parent Compound: AB-FUBINACA: N-[(1S)-1-(Aminocarbonyl)-2-methylpropyl]-1-[(4-fluorophenyl)methyl]-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
Trifluoromethyl Analog: AB-TFMUBINACA: N-[(1S)-1-(Aminocarbonyl)-2-methylpropyl]-1-[(4-trifluoromethylphenyl)methyl]-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide:
AB-TFMUBINACA
Last edited:
Isochromium
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2013
- Messages
- 59
As I wrote in the post, the ring terminology does not matter. The naming conventions are screwed.
Re-read the post carefully.
The post's purpose is not to argue over the semantics of official & unofficial names but to explain an effect based on structure-activity relationships.
Not a guess. Consistent results for all para- and terminally-Fluorinated Cannabinoids on both higher potency and CB1-selectivity.
I don't have time to prove every case but I will concede your partial victory if you can find and post as a reply one single case of a para- or terminally-Fluorinated Cannabinoid that has lower potency than its parent.
Terminal/para Fluorination is the only consistent modification that works to increase potency relative to parent on every synthetic Cannabinoid that has been tested.
If you need more evidence, here's some that I found a week ago:
The only trouble with all this terminal- and para-Trifluorination is that we run out of room to compactly-add Fluorine atoms.
Extending the Pentyl chain by one or more Carbons reduces potency.
Cyclohexyl and Phenyl groups are self-contained within their cycles so cannot be extended.
A short Fluoroalkane chain of 1-2 Carbons could be appended to these cycles at the para position but the chance of potency increase is lower due to the added bulk and its accompanying steric hindrance.
A better solution is to replace the tetravalent para-Carbon of these cyclic Cannabinoids with a hexavalent Sulphur atom thus providing four compact points of Fluorination. Sulphur itself is reasonably electronegative as well though a bit bulky. Here's an example of a Hexavalent Sulfur Endocycle (right side):
Now let's pick a victim to molest into the world's first tetrafluorinated Thiane Cannabinoid:
4TFT-MDMB-AMB
4-TetraFluoroThiane-MDMB-AMB
Now we are getting somewhere. It will be up to those lovely in-vivo tests to determine exactly where.
It should also be noted that these Sulfur-containing Cannabinoids including ADSB-FUB-187 produce Sulfuric Acid upon pyrolysis. It's a strong mineral acid as is Hydrofluoric Acid which is also produced.
Polyfluorinated Thiane Cannabinoids produce the worst pyrotoxicity due to their higher atom-count of Fluorine and the added Sulfur which produces Sulfuric Acid upon pyrolysis. Lungs will be exposed to both acids along with much larger quantities of the usual organic Fluorotoxins such as PFIB, Fluorophosgene, etc.
As we follow this Jacob's Ladder of molecular modification downwards the poor users of these increasingly-Fluorotoxic Cannabinoids encounter hotter-baking Hells with each step even as the drugs themselves rise up in potency.
I consider it a worthwhile task to design new steps down this Jacob's Ladder so that the very hottest-baked levels of Hell may become economically accessible to everyone.
Re-read the post carefully.
The post's purpose is not to argue over the semantics of official & unofficial names but to explain an effect based on structure-activity relationships.
Not a guess. Consistent results for all para- and terminally-Fluorinated Cannabinoids on both higher potency and CB1-selectivity.
I don't have time to prove every case but I will concede your partial victory if you can find and post as a reply one single case of a para- or terminally-Fluorinated Cannabinoid that has lower potency than its parent.
Terminal/para Fluorination is the only consistent modification that works to increase potency relative to parent on every synthetic Cannabinoid that has been tested.
If you need more evidence, here's some that I found a week ago:
The only trouble with all this terminal- and para-Trifluorination is that we run out of room to compactly-add Fluorine atoms.
Extending the Pentyl chain by one or more Carbons reduces potency.
Cyclohexyl and Phenyl groups are self-contained within their cycles so cannot be extended.
A short Fluoroalkane chain of 1-2 Carbons could be appended to these cycles at the para position but the chance of potency increase is lower due to the added bulk and its accompanying steric hindrance.
A better solution is to replace the tetravalent para-Carbon of these cyclic Cannabinoids with a hexavalent Sulphur atom thus providing four compact points of Fluorination. Sulphur itself is reasonably electronegative as well though a bit bulky. Here's an example of a Hexavalent Sulfur Endocycle (right side):
Now let's pick a victim to molest into the world's first tetrafluorinated Thiane Cannabinoid:
4TFT-MDMB-AMB
4-TetraFluoroThiane-MDMB-AMB
Now we are getting somewhere. It will be up to those lovely in-vivo tests to determine exactly where.
It should also be noted that these Sulfur-containing Cannabinoids including ADSB-FUB-187 produce Sulfuric Acid upon pyrolysis. It's a strong mineral acid as is Hydrofluoric Acid which is also produced.
Polyfluorinated Thiane Cannabinoids produce the worst pyrotoxicity due to their higher atom-count of Fluorine and the added Sulfur which produces Sulfuric Acid upon pyrolysis. Lungs will be exposed to both acids along with much larger quantities of the usual organic Fluorotoxins such as PFIB, Fluorophosgene, etc.
As we follow this Jacob's Ladder of molecular modification downwards the poor users of these increasingly-Fluorotoxic Cannabinoids encounter hotter-baking Hells with each step even as the drugs themselves rise up in potency.
I consider it a worthwhile task to design new steps down this Jacob's Ladder so that the very hottest-baked levels of Hell may become economically accessible to everyone.
Last edited:
Hi everybody.
I'd like to write here my experience with MAB-CHMINACA to add an "experimental" info to previous post of Jesusgreen (13-10-2014 20:53). I'm 1'80 m tall and I weight 90 kg. I'm 40 years old and I've been smoking 2-3 g of weed every day since my last 20 years. So I think I'm quite tolerant with cannabinoids. I started to vap some synthetic cannabinoids a couple of months ago with good experiences, since I've got MAB-CHMINACA.
This had been the worst experience in my life. I almost died. I was very unconscious as I didn't weight the dose, but I took as less as I could. The product came in the form of solid paste, easely mouldable when heated only with my fingers, so I did a very thin thread and I mixed with a cigar. I just smoked one drag and the rush was intantaneous and bestial. The cigar fell from my fingers to the floor. It took me a quite long while to get it from the floor and then, stupid of me, I took another drag. Then I fainted and I started having seizures and vomiting. I was lucky because my wife heard me when I started to swallow my vomit and begin to drown me. She moved my head and quickly call the ambulace. I spent 24 h sedated at hospital.
So please, avoid MAB-CHMINACA. It's very dangerous.
I'd like to write here my experience with MAB-CHMINACA to add an "experimental" info to previous post of Jesusgreen (13-10-2014 20:53). I'm 1'80 m tall and I weight 90 kg. I'm 40 years old and I've been smoking 2-3 g of weed every day since my last 20 years. So I think I'm quite tolerant with cannabinoids. I started to vap some synthetic cannabinoids a couple of months ago with good experiences, since I've got MAB-CHMINACA.
This had been the worst experience in my life. I almost died. I was very unconscious as I didn't weight the dose, but I took as less as I could. The product came in the form of solid paste, easely mouldable when heated only with my fingers, so I did a very thin thread and I mixed with a cigar. I just smoked one drag and the rush was intantaneous and bestial. The cigar fell from my fingers to the floor. It took me a quite long while to get it from the floor and then, stupid of me, I took another drag. Then I fainted and I started having seizures and vomiting. I was lucky because my wife heard me when I started to swallow my vomit and begin to drown me. She moved my head and quickly call the ambulace. I spent 24 h sedated at hospital.
So please, avoid MAB-CHMINACA. It's very dangerous.