• 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 | Cheshire_Kat

Tryptamines Newly Proposed Sched 1 Additions

Especially sad to see DiPT on here, only used it once but it is a fascinating substance with tons of research potential in understanding tinnitus and other auditory conditions. 5-MeO-MiPT is also an interesting one.

It is disgusting that the DEA is still pretending that psychedelics do not have massive potential in both research and medical use.
 
I can't understand why these chemicals were chosen, it seems so random. I guess that applies to the entire war on drugs...
 
Oddly they failed to target compounds that are actually commonly abused (liked 4-HO-MET for instance) but it looks like they are going the analog route. If they wanted to do damage they'd go for 4-AcO-DMT.
 
Apparently this is based off of a list of substances submitted to them by Health and Human Services...in 2012.
 
Look at how they define "abuse":

following four prongs in determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse: [2]

a. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or to the community; or

b. There is a significant diversion of the drug or other substance from legitimate drug channels; or

c. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs; or

d. The drug is so related in its action to a drug or other substance already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that it will have the same potential for abuse as such substance, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.




c. so if you think about putting anything in your body that we don't tell you to... ABUSE

fucking crooks man
 
mdx92129 said:
Pathetic, the DEA must be on the menopause. Although I am not a resident of the Americas, this is still deeply infuriating. DiPT is the most important neurochemical probe out there, I feel bad for any researchers wanting to use it. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic!
Click to expand...
That's the saddest part of the whole thing. These legislators/bureaus are too stupid to realize how pervasive the serotonin signaling system is, how much we stand to gain from understanding it better, and how little will be gained from banning these compounds.

It would be really interesting if they tried to ban DOI at some point, then I imagine there would be a ton of backlash from the scientific community. Not only because of its importance as a probe, but especially with the emerging evidence of its potential as an anti-inflammatory. Picomolar affinity as a TNF/NF-KB inhibitor is just insane, and this concentration is way below the behavioral threshold.
 
Negentropic said:
Look at how they define "abuse":

following four prongs in determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse: [2]

a. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or to the community; or

b. There is a significant diversion of the drug or other substance from legitimate drug channels; or

c. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs; or

d. The drug is so related in its action to a drug or other substance already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that it will have the same potential for abuse as such substance, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.




c. so if you think about putting anything in your body that we don't tell you to... ABUSE

fucking crooks man
Click to expand...


So people are taking substances on their own that the doctors have no real clue about and so we are not going to allow people to take or it be researched.

Prohibition of all we don’t understand!!

DEA may want to concentrate on all the deadly substances and cartels their insanely stupid failed policies have failed to address, created and fund before they start pretending to prohibit more substances.

Well ideally lets pretend we are doing good. Unofficial DEA slogan
 
Last edited:
Negentropic said:
Look at how they define "abuse":

following four prongs in determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse: [2]

a. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or to the community; or

b. There is a significant diversion of the drug or other substance from legitimate drug channels; or

c. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs; or

d. The drug is so related in its action to a drug or other substance already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that it will have the same potential for abuse as such substance, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.




c. so if you think about putting anything in your body that we don't tell you to... ABUSE

fucking crooks man
Click to expand...
Let’s see if Tron will weigh in on this. @Tronica
 
Negentropic said:
Look at how they define "abuse":

following four prongs in determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse: [2]

a. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or to the community; or

b. There is a significant diversion of the drug or other substance from legitimate drug channels; or

c. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs; or

d. The drug is so related in its action to a drug or other substance already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that it will have the same potential for abuse as such substance, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.




c. so if you think about putting anything in your body that we don't tell you to... ABUSE

fucking crooks man
Click to expand...
yep exactly they already are medicalising resistance to their attempts to override individual autonomy by casting the label of 'mentally unstable' upon anyone whomst dares think for themselves, soon anyone who is not a model minion of the doublespeak variant will have their figurative tongues cut out - mark my words
 
something I often wonder about the DEA is if the people helping to make decisions like these genuinely believe they are doing good…

I think it’s easy for us drug users to chalk it all up to authoritarianism but as Hanlon’s razor says “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”

for example, I knew an older guy who was a retired narcotics cop. he was actually pretty high up in a state wide narcotics task force. he remains convinced that he was helping the community by ‘taking drugs off the streets’. but he didn’t seem to hold any hatred or have ill wishes for drug users.

this guy was not very educated. kinda dumb if I’m being honest. but not a hateful person. can we fairly attribute his drug enforcement actions to malice then?

idk it’s just something to think about
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top