• 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

Recreational -phylline derivatives?

Ham-milton

Ham-milton

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
5,738
Does anyone know if there has been much study done on the recreational potential of the phyllines? I thought there was one that was much enjoyed in the mid east (Captagon?) that's mostly counterfeit today, filled with amph or mamp.
 
there are some "super"-xanthines in regard to potency and duration, but i am not sure if any of them deliver any real rec potential like increased euphoria or such
 
it is simply theophylline and AMPH bridged together

that has been done with many different combos of stims

simply a pro-drug form of both compounds
 
fenethylline is the one I was thinking, the captagon active.

Could other xanthine-PEA combos be built to get around the analogue act? I mean, there's no law against these sorts of prodrugs.

Or would the synthetic route require you to first synthesize, or produce as a byproduct, the already illegal compound first?

Obviously using theophylline as the methylxanthine wouldn't work, since fenethylline is a scheduled drug, so I suppose a MDMA-phylline combo would be an analogue of fenethylline.

But what about caffeine or theobromine? I haven't bothered to look at structures or chemistry for this yet, so don't flog me too hard if these are completely impossible.
 
All I can say is that where I live, there is a weird molecule called Diphenhydramine Diacefylline.
Just like Dimenhydrinate is 8-chlorotheophylline bonded to Diphenhydramine; Diphenhydramine is (di?)Acefylline bonded with Diphenhydramine.

All I can say is that it is EXTREMELY enjoyable to shoot, much more than any other antihistamine, could it be due to the -phylline part? (Diphenhydramine on its own doesn't produce the same great effects).
 
When you make the comparison, do you mean to say that Diphenhydramine diacefylline is "(di?)Acefylline bonded with Diphenhydramine?"
 
Ham-milton said:
When you make the comparison, do you mean to say that Diphenhydramine diacefylline is "(di?)Acefylline bonded with Diphenhydramine?"
Click to expand...

I don't really know, I know that Dimenhydrinate is not even Diphenhydramine bonded with 8-chlorotheophylline; it's an equimolar combination of Diphenhydramine and 8-chlorotheophylline.
I don't know if Diphenhydramine Diacefylline is Diphenhydramine bonded with Diacefylline or just an equimolar combination like Dimenhydrinate.......

And it has all the chemical properties of Diphenhydramine + the pharmacological properties of the -phyllines.....
 
Ham-milton said:
fenethylline is the one I was thinking, the captagon active.

Could other xanthine-PEA combos be built to get around the analogue act? I mean, there's no law against these sorts of prodrugs.

Or would the synthetic route require you to first synthesize, or produce as a byproduct, the already illegal compound first?

Obviously using theophylline as the methylxanthine wouldn't work, since fenethylline is a scheduled drug, so I suppose a MDMA-phylline combo would be an analogue of fenethylline.

But what about caffeine or theobromine? I haven't bothered to look at structures or chemistry for this yet, so don't flog me too hard if these are completely impossible.
Click to expand...


this approach in ANY fashion does not afford compounds that are not easily to be considered within the scope of the analogue act....sorry :| :(
 
How do you figure? The drug is no longer really even related, and the structure is no longer remotely similar.

If you're only looking at part of the structure, sure- a drug isn't simply a single part of the structure
 
the analogue act is broad as it uses the wording 'similar in structure'

the drug is highly related as part of its effect is as a pro-drug for a sched I or II compound as such

well a structure that contains a sched 1 or II within its very structure certainly would likely be easy pickins in court to wind up on the wrong side of the bars

if it was that easy we could simply conjugate any sched I or II compound with an appendage that was say anything such as caffeine or whatnot which is not hard to do

that just ain;t gonna fly
 
I don't think the pro-drug effect is something that'll be taken into account, but I don't doubt the DEA would spin it their way.

But the wording is "substantially similar"- I don't think that a huge appendage counts as substantially similar.
 
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a "combination" prodrug that doesn't contain the scheduled drug's structure inside.

In fenethylline, for example, thats just amphetamine with an "N-theophylline" moeity. That is definitely an analog of amphetamine.

How do you suppose it could work, Ham? I'm not trying to call you out, I'm just looking for ideas.
 
I'm not certain. My understanding of this isn't as good as it should be, I suppose. I was under the impression that for something to be substantially similar (and the spirit of the act) was to prevent minor changes in the structure- adding a methyl here or a benzyl there- not tacking on an entirely dissimilar molecule that drastrically adds to the structure.
 
newspeak would dictate the because the addition is "substantial" and the rest of the molecule is "similar" (in this case the same), the Ministry of Thought-Freedom would consider this compound "substantially similar" and thus treasonous.
 
LuxEtVeritas said:
it is simply theophylline and AMPH bridged together

that has been done with many different combos of stims

simply a pro-drug form of both compounds
Click to expand...

I find that totally fascinating. I'm not a chemist myself, so it's always wonderful to learn something new (or, more specifically, simply something incredibly cool). I never knew drugs like this existed, but it makes perfect sense to do something like this.
 
kidamnesiac said:
newspeak would dictate the because the addition is "substantial" and the rest of the molecule is "similar" (in this case the same), the Ministry of Thought-Freedom would consider this compound "substantially similar" and thus treasonous.
Click to expand...


Is that how it works again? Damnit!
 
OK Ham to put you back on a happy note, LOL, now if you take any Sched III or IV and add any appendage (meaningless even or otherwise) or other minor and reasonably insignificant changes it is now legal under what the current law's wording says or rather does not say...at least that is my legal take from my expert position =D

ie., take KET and change the methyl to an ethyl

but yes take any Sched I or II and it is my understanding that the structure really only needs to be remotely similar and they can class it under the analogue law if they so chose to...cdertainly enough to make your life miserable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top