• 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

New Drugs in the future???

mgrady3 said:
wouldn't AL-LAD and PRO-LAD be analogues of LSD, thus already covered under FAA?
Not saying they wouldn't be interesting to try just that they wouldn't be readily available as RCs (to buy online for instance)
Click to expand...
Certainly they would be considered analogs. Not that that has stopped dozens of other analogs from being sold on the net.
 
Well by the time someone gets around to working on this stuff, by the time they have some success, hopefully sooner rather than later but with this work there are no guarantees...

You can consider one of three possibilities:

(1) The person never releases the information publicly for fear of incarceration and to keep things underground until their death. That would be unfortunate...

(2) The person markets the substance as a pharmaceutical because it functions as a near perfect antidepressant or has other medicinal value. Thus it would be available one way or another.

(3) The drug is published and declared an illicit substance after an initial wave of intense commercial availability, and at the same time peptide synthesis capabilities become increasingly more available thus putting the compound within arms reach to those interested.

Alternatively, peptide synthesis capabilities remain limited to the experts but because the drug is so sought after even they get caught up in the drug game and mass produce it secretly to fuel the public demand.
 
^you said you made peptides, and your name is psychedelic peptide.
have you made any psychedelic peptides, or is this conjecture?
 
They are already available and for sale (from official companies who I'd imagine would actually sell them no questions at that price)

ab16195 = one example (you'll prob tell me bad example as it doesn't pass BBB)

Still getting past and absorbed without being broken down, then get past BBB + as people have discussed getting the price WAY DOWN. What gets me is we still haven't seen a commercial peptide for a treatable medical condition. That would come first yet they are so commercially available.


I hear your optimistic future vision though. (I am potentially applying todays logic to tomorrow technology)
 
Last edited:
Well, melanotan is a peptide that is supposed to be an effective aphrodisiac which is a treatable medical condition and has been marketed commercially for this purpose although also illegally. Also, I suppose one could consider induction of a tan in people with rosacea as a medical treatment, and it is legally marketed for this purpose. That said, I don't see peptides as recreational drugs when there's so much unexploited room in easier to clandestinely synthesize recreational drugs. The imprecision of drugs like morphine which does not specifically act of just the MU opioid receptor, or MDMA which effects a variety of neurotransmitters, is exactly what gives them a high potential for abuse.
 
Last edited:
Certainly peptides have potential as lifestyle drugs and therapeutic drugs. That melanotan stuff (Afamelanotide), is supposed to be a very effective and fairly safe drug for naturally producing a tan and the other melanotan is supposed to be an aphrodisiac in both men and women, effective to the point that it has raised concerns about it being used to trick people into having sex with someone they might not otherwise be attracted to.

The thing about recreational drugs however is that they have to not only have abuse potential, which I have yet to see indications of superiority in this area with peptides, but for them to truly catch on on a large scale they also have to be cheaply and easily made in quick periods with readily available precursors and equipment. Fentanyl for example has been around for a long time, and although it is encountered in the illicit opioid market, it is not a huge factor. It's actually quite amazing how it is preferable for a cartel to pay someone in afghanistan or mexico to produce such a labor intensive and low yielding crop as opium, use it to synthesize heroin, and pay someone to risk spending the rest of their life in jail to bring it across a border than it is to synthesize a small quantity of fentanyl. How can this be? Well, it is because there's so much desperation in countries like afghanistan and mexico that people have very little to lose, they'll work for pennies and they'll risk massive jail sentences so their children can eat.

Meth caught on in a large part because pseudoephedrine was easy to get and the synthesis from pseudo is easily accomplished. Even from almond oil, it doesnt exactly require a chemical engineer with a doctorate. Now that there's a demand for it, they could totally outlaw pseudo in the us and it won't change things since Mexico can produce it and smuggle it in, even pure d-meth from p2p for cheaper and less risk even with the smuggling, than it can be produced from pseudo in the US.

MDMA is a similar thing. It's easily manufactured, and the manufacture for the US supply will probably end up in Mexico because it's cheaper and less restrictive (completely unrestricted in the case of the cartels) and they can price the american and western european manufacturers out of the market, especially as laws in the US and western europe become increasingly restrictive on chemicals and glassware. Sure resourceful chemists can always find a way to work, but increased restrictions increase cost.

One thing I think will happen is we'll eventually start to see more black market made thebaine derived opioids as time goes on. Not super potent bentley opioids but things like oxymorphone. It would minimize smuggling space, is thought to have even more recreational potential than heroin, increased addiction, although more involved does not employ the thoroughly watched acetic anhydride, can fit more doses in a smaller space, has more efficient use of farmed precursors, can be made from both perennial poppy species, which have lower labor needs, as well as the annual somniferum poppies. It has a pre-existing customer base of junkies, and a preexisting infrastructure of poppy farmers, chemists smugglers and dealers.

It also wouldn't surprise me if we started to see our first american born drug cartels soon with great depression unemployment levels in some rural areas , substantial increases in demand for diverted and knockoff pharmaceuticals from viagra to oxycontin and illicitly produced synthetic drugs like mdma meth and fentanyl, out of work fishing boats on the gulf coast, and vast disparities in cannabis laws between neighboring states with much of california's medical crop going to black market traffickers. Mexican cartels control the north american cocaine trade even though mexico produces no cocaine. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to see american born cartels doing the same thing.
 
Yup ,once meth got popular, that cat isn't going to go back into the bag.

I am surprised the US government is too stupid to realise, that even were they to ban p-fed entirely, it still won't impact the meth trade at all, I wouldn't think, all those chemists will either move to P2P, or start going via the henry/knoevenagel condensation route ala shulgin (out of curiosity, what is the stereochemical result from the latter, after forming the nitroalkene and its subsequent reduction to the aminoalkane? racemic product I presume?

Considering that there one can start with toluene, and they aren't going to be able to ban that any time soon, or even benzene--->P2P if somebody decides to do it, and look how much benzoate salts are used in food these days as preservatives...again not going to get banned ASAP.
 
Limpet, you're drifting dangerously close towards synthesis discussion. The product of Shulgin's route to methamphetamine is of course racemic. Let's stop it here.

Banning any ephedrine-containing medicines won't change anything. The big deal of meth in the US comes these days from Mexico.


- Murphy
 
Phener said:
What gets me is we still haven't seen a commercial peptide for a treatable medical condition.
Click to expand...

You probably won't for a long time. They will all be sold as prescription meds for a long time when there is legitimate and quality science backing it up to get FDA approval.

This is the reason peptide- and protein-based medicines are expected to take over many pharmaceutical companies portfolios eventually; because there is so much room for new material (along with new targets- ones that cannot be modulated with small molecules) for them to patent or in the case of university research for the school to patent and then license to the pharm company.

I assume that is what you mean by commercial, that it would be available without prescription.

You could technically put the growth hormone releasing hormone analogs in as capable of treating growth hormone deficiency, because some GHRH peptides can be bought online without prescription but there is no official marketing for it or anything like that.

Regarding melanotan, it is not a good drug because there are way too many side effects. If it was worth a shit it would have gotten approved as a drug back in the 80s when it was discovered and they did all the initial tests in AZ.

As for turing machine, just remember the title of the thread is "drugs in the future" so I wouldn't count anything out until we get there.

Lets say for instance I publish a paper this year detailing a new peptide that is no harder to synthesize than melanotan (which has a few quirks with its cyclization but is still easily within grasp of many online vendors) but has psychedelic activity similar to LSD with less potential for side effects (body strain and 5-HT receptor downregulation) and an equally high potency.

I also dismiss patenting the compound so that it can be sold or traded freely by anyone as soon as I release the information to the public (lets assume I don't have any employment ties either).

You don't think this peptide wouldn't be widely available within weeks?

There are already handfuls of companies that will make and sell any peptide they can. The only reason the market isn't that big is because there are not enough things to sell yet.

The only thing to stop the drug from massive sales would be government legislation.

Even then, if it is that good... better than LSD... people have a way of making things happen and be available because you know the price tag and sheer desire to have it would drive them to it.
 
PsychedelicPeptide said:
Regarding melanotan, it is not a good drug because there are way too many side effects. If it was worth a shit it would have gotten approved as a drug back in the 80s when it was discovered and they did all the initial tests in AZ.
Click to expand...

The cyclic peptide melanotan 2 seems to be what you are more familiar with, not to be confused with Melanotan (melanotan one, afamelanotide, scenesse)
 
MurphyClox said:
Limpet, you're drifting dangerously close towards synthesis discussion. The product of Shulgin's route to methamphetamine is of course racemic. Let's stop it here.

Banning any ephedrine-containing medicines won't change anything. The big deal of meth in the US comes these days from Mexico.


- Murphy
Click to expand...


Yes, less specific organic chemistry if we can please.

On the other point, while I'm at it, ephedrine can be produced by harvesting plants - various species native to N. America have ephedrine as part of their biochemistry and in fairly high yield. Banning medicines is a typical political type move, trying to be seen to be 'doing things' about the drugs situation. All smoke and mirrors. It will only stop the small scale production setups which make up a small percentage of total meth production
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top