porkstock
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 773
Nailed it. Also, patents are meant to protect innovation. And this patent by Compass Pathways is being challenged due to NOT being new. I don't think the patent should have ever been granted. I'm no expert but I do have to deal with patent law a tiny bit in my small pharma job.I think the reason people might feel upset about patents for psychedelics is that we feel that psychedelics should be for everyone, not for profit. And patents on drugs are part of why pharmaceuticals are so insanely expensive... patents lead to monopolies, which lead to out of control prices.
Patents also tend to fuck over small companies, because bigger better funded companies grab the low hanging fruit (like crystallizing psilocybin and claiming it's a new crystal) and prevent small companies from competing and... monopolies like Xorkoth said.
Hey man I wanted to thank you for posting that podcast a few pages back with Dennis McKenna. It has really invigorated my interest in consuming psychedelic articles and podcastsAlways had a real fondness for MDA

Very interesting to learn that mushrooms were not widely available in the 60s. I had assumed they were. It was mostly LSD, MDA, some DMT, DET and that's about it I think Dennis was saying. In a way, LSD has had a more well studied history of use than mushrooms. And DET had become very intriguing to me, just reading about the history of it.
Shulgin lists it as orally active in the DET entry, and apologizes in the extension and commentary to say that it was his mistake to day in other publications that DET wasn't orally active. He owns up to being wrong...but he didn't correct the mistake in the commentary for two other compounds.
He says how adding a 2-methyl to a base tryptamine that's not orally active will make it so. And uses DMT and DET as examples. And a 2nd place too so I was pretty confused working this out last night after midnight, flipping through my copies of TiHKAL and PiHKAL.
I noticed that Shulgin seemed to love 5-meo-dipt (calls it LSD-like) and 4-ho-dipt (says he doubts there is a psychedelic anywhere that can match it for speed, intensity, brevity and sensitivity to dose - that is orally active)
But he doesn't show the same love for the MiPT versions. Having only tried 4-ho-mipt if these tryptamines listed, it makes me pretty curious about 4-ho-dipt, as well as foxy (5-meo-dipt right?) and moxy. But if I ever were to venture into new to me tryptamines (not that likely), I might be more likely to go for a different 4-sub like 4-ho-met, which shulgin basically lost his notes on, so they entry is pretty brief - yet it seems to be a community favorite.
Another interesting note from PiKHAL - Shulgin went on quite a "bender" after his first wife died. After he decided to "pull the plug" on his wife that he was cheating on. Anyways, he did:
40 mg 4-thiomescaline a couple weeks after the funeral (a new high dose) on Saturday.
16 mg 2cb, another new high dose for him at the time, on Wed. on a red eye flight.
140 mg MDMA on Fri.
20 mg 2ce on Sunday, another new high dose (with some significant cross tolerance I'm guessing)
First I wondered if that could have contributed to his neutral or dark assessment of 2ce, but he doesnt say that about 2cb or MDMA, and I know what he means from taking 2ce many years back, many times

QUESTION FOR ALL
Does anyone know why 4-hyroxy chemicals can pass the blood brain barrier, but 5-hydroxy chemicals have a hard time or can't pass the BBB? Shulgin says that exposed, polar OH groups make it difficult to get into the brain (like for 5-HO-DMT AKA bufotenine - I also know that serotonin, 5-HO-T, doesn't pass the BBB)...
Is the 4 position hydroxyl not "exposed"?
Last edited: