lets see if my piece of shit country really votes for the facist this time. in the meanwhile I'll get as high as possible all day long
one of the highest standard of living world wide, functioning social security network and healthcare system, basically free higher education, but still people are "afraid" and fear every fucking thing these fucking populists whisper in their ears. moronic racist pieces of shit
goddamn I'm edgy.. it's 10 am and I better smoke a bong now... maybe scoop some kratom as well before breakfast
edit: should have gone to the social talk thread, but nevermind. if a mod cares, please move, so that I don't bum out the swirly people.
Took 45 mg 2C-C yesterday on the tail end of my prescribed dexamph and there was a little pregabalin involved. Semi forgot how impotent it is and didn't want to jump in ridiculously high after not having done it in quite some time... it was kind of boring, mostly some tactile softening and my vision was affected but for me this particular compound is not worth it unless you have a strong experience or use it for sex etc.
I really like 2C-C honestly, I might even like it a little better than 2C-B (except that 2C-B in combos is legendary). I mean 2C-B has more euphoria and a softer and warmer body high, but I find 2C-C to have crisper and more active visuals, and a more psychedelic headspace, while retaining that warmth and good-natured feeling. It's a little edgier than 2C-B but overall I find them quite similar and I'd use them for similar situations. When I get my tax return I'm gonna stock up on the available 2Cs, and 2C-C is certainly going to be part of that and probably the one I'll use most often. Though to be fair I have never taken a full dose of 2C-D (2C-M, yes I agree it makes more sense. Hell Shulgin even named the amphetamine counterpart DOM, not DOD).
Weirdly, the first few times I took 2C-C I found it lackluster and not potent... 40mg gave me a very mild trip. But the last time I took it, I took 32mg (all my friend had left, I would have probably gone for 50), and had a full trip (for what it is, I mean 2C-C isn't going to produce anything world-shattering just like how 2C-B won't), lots of visuals and a great headspace with euphoria. I think 50mg would have been way too intense for the situation (live music at a venue), at 32mg during the peak I already had a bit of awkwardness but totally manageable.
Yeah, definitely. It's no MDMA replacement but damn if it doesn't feel good. It produces some lovey feelings and a really great body high and mild and definitely euphoria. It also lasts a lot longer than MDMA. Feels quite benign too.
No worries man, the two social threads are interchangeable really, the main purpose was to provide a new social thread to draw in new people since I think people sometimes see the tight community in the other one and are maybe afraid to post in it.
Shulgin made DOM first, then decided to make the 2 carbon homolog. In the first entry for it in his lab notebook, he called it 2C-DOM. Later on he shortened it to 2C-D. I guess he wasn't anticipating creating the other 2Cs when he named it 2C-D.
Anyone who is really interested in Shulgin's work might be interested in checking out his lab notebooks. You can look at them on Erowid. There are chemicals in there that didn't have entries in PIHKAL and TIHKAL. A lot of them were found to be inactive or not worthwhile, but there are some interesting ones, like MIPLA. I haven't found trip reports on that one anywhere else, but it sounds promising. I don't know why Shulgin didn't include it in TIHKAL.
Yeah I sorta go out of my way to get 2C-C even though I can very easily get 2C-B (but would settle otherwise).. maybe cause I had my fair share of 2C-B in the past but also cause I absolutely love the tranquility 2C-C can give. Other chloro analogues as well apparently. Could be worth checking the pharmacology of those fellas.
That naming convention of his (he is mostly consistent but has a number of pretty weird quirks) is strange, he probably could have safely assumed he would make plenty more compounds. The question is: could he have known at the time that the 4-position would be varied rather than the other ones? Probably wasn't a smart move anyway since the D doesn't refer to something that's really variable like the methyl group is - it's just going from TMA-2 to DOM because it's TMA-2 that is desoxy'd. Yet he did include the M for methyl there, clearly being aware that it's worth mentioning (despite there being 2 other methoxies that could undergo the same desoxy'genation). I love the man and his work but that seems convoluted?
Then again, plenty of other people, genius or not, would likely make what would later turn out to be different impractical decisions. Hindsight is 20-20. But some names are just as much dead ends as he calls halogen substitutions.
Shulgin made DOM first, then decided to make the 2 carbon homolog. In the first entry for it in his lab notebook, he called it 2C-DOM. Later on he shortened it to 2C-D.
This I did not know, and I've actually looked (although in no means systematically) at some of the lab books; this I guess makes a bit of sense as he did have drugs with names like ψ-DOM (a DOM isomer); I didn't think, though, that 2C-D stood for anything but desoxy, which I guess it still does, kind of, although DOM isn't desoxy-Mescaline, that's something else entirely, and could never figure out why. Learn something every day, I guess; I still like the symmetry of calling it 2C-M, I guess.
.
Anyone who is really interested in Shulgin's work might be interested in checking out his lab notebooks. You can look at them on Erowid. There are chemicals in there that didn't have entries in PIHKAL and TIHKAL. A lot of them were found to be inactive or not worthwhile, but there are some interesting ones, like MIPLA. I haven't found trip reports on that one anywhere else, but it sounds promising. I don't know why Shulgin didn't include it in TIHKAL.
I've read a bit of his lab notebooks, it is indeed interesting stuff due to compounds previously unheard of. One thing I always wished in Shulgin's works is that the trip reports be more filled in. So much of the time the entire report is something like:
"Some body discomfort in the first hour, gave way to smoothness. Walking in the garden was sublime. Good erotic. Sleep unattainable until the 10th hour"
Very good point! I had the same reaction... seems to me that it would have been valuable to be specific about psychedelic effects and not only when the most unusual episodes occured. Otherwise it seems like a way too clinical logging of how well it's tolerated.
Do you suppose it reflects what he intended with it? Was he as a scientist just cataloguing general psychedelic potential with little regard about the specifics? Maybe that is true officially though I still would have expected that out of personal curiosity he would have logged the specifics.
When I read PIHKAL, I got the feeling that he was IN GENERAL not paying much attention to specific details of things, haha. It kind of shows in the way he writes his chapters in the first part of the book. Ann's parts have much more personal and descriptive details, where Sasha just kind of follow through with the narrative.
But yeah, it's my impression that Shulgin primarily viewed himself as a scientist, and was very careful not to step into the "Psychedelic Guru/New Age reference" character. I think what appealed him the most was the possibilities of "molecule twitching", and of course the life changing potential this chemicals have, but I get the feeling, from what he wrote and expressed in interviews and whatnot, that he was kind of reserved about giving a specific character to psychedelics, I think he knew they would mean different things for different people, so he tried to leave the most subjective details in the open. And I guess that's part of the purpose of letting many different perspectives into the trip reports. That's why I think the information he made public was mostly "clinical" in nature. Makes more sense in the context of psychedelic "activism". I think he, as a scientist, understood that the most whimsical, "far out" public face of psychedelic substances would make little service into them being taken seriously in the academia and in the area of cutting edge psychotherapy, and as a political subject, etc.
So I guess he was mostly respecting that "conventional" approach. He was an Academic, after all. It's the same reason we don't see people like David Nichols sending out trip reports.
Yeah I think you're probably right. He was a scientist, with a very special allowance to be able to study psychedelics, so he probably wanted to be really careful not to give the impression he was personally into it, or that he was taking drugs in the sense that government frowned upon. It seems anecdotally that he really did value the experiences greatly, but to communicate that in PIHKAL/TIHKAL would have perhaps put a big target on his back and/or caused his research to be stopped.
That's very well explained by the both of you, I agree.
Still, it should be possible even for a skeptical scientist to give a personal account of an experience as he should also know that personal experiences don't mean you give it all credit. Just like telling someone your dreams is not the same as what you believe in. So it does seem quite a bit reserved a view from even refraining to just honestly account what it felt like to you. Although I never saw him as a conservative person.
TiHKAL. I just finished reading it last night. I was expecting it to be a continuation of PiHKAL that focuses more on tryptamines, but it's mostly random shit like that.
I was kinda disappointed that there weren't any chapters about discovering new tryptamines. I really enjoyed reading in PiHKAL about the process he went through to create new phenethylamines.
I never more than skimmed the narrative sections of PiHKAL and TiHKAL tbh.
What's more, I don't really like or read trip reports as such (drug culture "war stories," though, I love; "...and then I realized that I had to drive all the way to Memphis with 10 pounds of weed in the trunk just after I dropped three tabs of the Ganesha print and shit was starting to get swirly on me; I called up Martha and she was just wasted and in no condition either, but we had to be there by Monday at 10 or else we'd piss Bobby Black off real bad ...")
Stories just about being under the influence, though? Nah, never did, really, especially once I started doing a lot of drugs, especially those that are done in an overly narrative fashion or with any focus on thoughts (especially) or actions (unless they relate to drug effects) or personalities or psychosocial issues or whatever during the trip, I don't find them particularly interesting and are usually long, expansive, boring and pretentious.
When I was young and didn't have a lot of access to drugs I vicariously read loads of Erowid trip reports and rather wish I had not as I expect that it colored my perceptions of the experiences I'd have with the drugs in question, a bit of a shame; to look back on some of them now is pretty funny as a lot of them are just ridiculous, adolescent, obvious exaggerations, all these stories that start out "well there was P, G, G had the car, K, G's girlfriend, blah blah blah," lol. Especially when it comes out that he's anxious because he has a crush on the girl and the he winds up taking his clothes off and running down Main Street. (OK, the "Trainwrecks and Trip Disasters" are a plentiful source of Schadenfreude and lulz.)
Generally, though, most of the time reading this stuff, I feel like, who cares? If the story is going somewhere, it's a story; but as a trip report, I think the focus needs to be squarely on the drug, not the druggy. I think Shulgin's style, or something slightly more expansive, is perfect; I didn't write many of them, although one time I had it in mind to write a large number of them (that time in my life that I was using psychedelics prolifically is probably too far gone now), but when I did, I had a rule, to not describe anything I was thinking or doing, only the effects of the drug, and to do it in a non-narrative fashion; like here (thread);
2C-D, 40mg of the hydrochloride, i.m., to the deltoid. Home alone on a Saturday night, on a whim. On a baseline dose of 8 gr of good Bali kratom, taken at T-3 hours.
Rapid onset with first alert felt at around T+4 or 5 minutes, rapidly elevating in intensity--an overwhelming psychedelic body rush. It is too much for me, I vomit from the intensity, then go lie down. I am enveloped by geometric shapes. I am enveloped--but still it is all very subdued in a way, the visuals are not intricate, there are no fractals or complex, impossible structures like with DMT or LSD, although the sheer amount of disturbance to my visual field rivals either; the colors are primary and low in intensity, but everything is increasingly shattered into this fundamental geometry.
Despite the intensity of the perceptual disturbances, I feel remarkably clear-headed; lucid, even. Mood is neutral. The ego is entirely intact. Fundamentally I feel sober, at least in comparison to the salience of the visuals, the greatest alteration to my sensorium is a general drugedness, a stoning sensation, a flitting of the mind between different disconnected trains of thought, but nothing quite out of the ordinary. The visual aspect is truly remarkable, however, the colors become more brilliant and start to strobe towards the peak; there are also, unusually for me on a classical psychedelic, notable auditory effects, primarily strobing and rhythmic distortions of sounds present in the ordinary "white noise" of city life going on beyond my walls. Also oddly, I find no enjoyment in music, on the contrary, I find it agitating. I vomit again.
After the rapid come up, things plateau a bit and I feel more positive. Stoned sensorium recedes, and I start to think more clearly in an operative sense. There is still a good deal of residual tension; body load in the form of clenched jaw and a slight tremulousness, peripheral vasoconstriction. There is a diminished sensitivity to pain. At about an hour after the injection, the visuals die down. Light psychedelia to T+2 hours, and shortly thereafter I return to baseline with the exception of a lingering sensation not unlike haven drunken too much coffee. This persists a few hours. In retrospect, dose could be considered excessive, but experience remembered as rewarding.
This is longer than I like, only really because I think I might have been the first person to do this drug by injection; my report on WIN-35,428 (the following are probably my two longest trip reports ever) breaks some of my own rules too, solely because I was the first to write about it and may be one of a very few people to have ever tried it;
I prefer nothing longer than a paragraph; 5-MeO-MiPT, marijuana, heroin, etc. 5-MeO-DMT, the most profound psychedelic experience I've had, I don't think needs more than a paragraph either; my ideal for parsimony is something like my notes on 2C-T-21,
10mg p.o. is barely threshold, but note intellectual stimulation on the order of a sub-psychedelic dose of DOC or 2C-D, with a bit more of a euphoric push. There is a hint of visual involvement in the way that I percieve colors, but nothing flows or moves. I integrate socially on a similar level to sobriety. I walked a long distance and did not feel tired, but I did not feel especially stimulated either.
22mg p.o. is more interesting. I see rainbows much like DOC, I have color enhancement along the lines of 2C-D, shapes and colors grow and change and dance a little at the peak. My consciousness still feels at it's baseline in an operative sense but my mood is expansive and a little grandiose. The nootropic effect of the lower dose persists. There is marked diaphoresis and slight peripheral constriction. A little nausea on the come up but nothing extreme and it passes. The come on is slow, the peak rather short and the return to baseline long but not laborious. At T+10:00 I sleep, feeling exhausted.
Which begs the question, what's the purpose of a trip report? I find "stories about tripping" a bore, and did even when I was tripping, because everyone gets their own trip, and what's the point? What I want to get out of it is information about the effect of the drug, not autobiography (and certainly not personal or existential instincts); that can be hard to convey, for sure, we need to develop a language to do so (and there have been valiant attempts to do so that met at most a modicum of success, because it's very, very, difficult, basically you'd wind up rating each drug on a zillion different scales from "visual (geometric)," "visual (tracing)", "visual (shifting)", "visual (morphing)" ... etc ... to "tactile," "erotic," "music enhancing (synaesthetic)," "music enhancing (beat)," "music enhancing (sense of the epic)," or whatever, that would be a bit of a drag, unless we actually learned to use these objective terms and wrote experience reports that used them, in that case then maybe we could obviate the whole need for the genre.
That is, except, for those who are more interested in writing retrospectives about their relationship with drugs in general, autobiography or philosophical speculation or fiction, which includes me, and I do write about tripping on drugs, but in a manner that's totally impressionistic and stream of consciousness and in no way a "trip report."
What's the purpose of a trip report? Well it depends. The Shulgin-style report, I think has an obvious point, which it seems you agree with. Those are valuable in that they provide information about a drug's effects in a succinct way. However, I personally fully enjoy longer, narrative-style trip reports that delve into personal feelings and experiences. I mean obviously I like to write reports like that so I must like them, then again, a lot of other people like them too. I find that a good story-style report can provide more insight into the effects of a drug than a simple paragraph describing it in a clinical way, at least in an individual's brain. Read enough of them and you get a pretty well-rounded idea of what you might expect. I also kind of like the idea that by writing and reading reports, you tap into/contribute to a sort of collective group experience with a drug, I find that fascinating. What's more, I just like to read stories, if they're well-written and interesting, and one of the things that interests me is drugs; therefore, I like to read about people using drugs and what they'e experiencing. If the story has information about all aspects of the experience including what happened, what a person thought about, and so on, so much the better. All of my favorite trip "reports" are stories that someone took the time to tell and all of the personal details make it richer to me.
I used to write trip reports in a "time stamp - here's what I'm feeling/experiencing now" sort of way, but as I've gotten older I've shifted more into writing a narrative, making it into a story, because I like writing and telling a story. It could be seen as a creative writing exercise, except it's my interpretation of an actual experience, where I choose language that I feel best conveys my reliving of that experience. Those are also the kinds of drug stories I like reading the most, that or retrospectives like what you're writing, both of which are narrative stories more than simple reports. Incidentally, I generally find the sort of stories you're referencing (Me, B, R, and S got in the car, we got fucked up, it was cool) to be quite boring and I rarely read them (though when I was younger I identified with them more). Although I must confess I really enjoy reading datura trip reports, most of which are written like that.
Oh my. I'm not in the most descriptive or poetic mood right but I think I just gave birth to myself out of my blankets in my bed . I think I tried to nap while letting it come up? This has been indescribably amazing so far. Like waking from another universe back into this one.
