Safer Research Chemical User's Guide

[Blowmonkey]

As long as you put something in there discouraging people from using it, it's so annoying.

Another suggestion for "should I go to the hospital" would be: "grab the activated charcoal in case of an (oral) overdose, given not too much time has passed since dosing."

 

[illuminati boy]

Damn, I bet that took a lot of thought to write. It reads like a manual for conducting amateur research. Was that your intent?

It is clearly a parody of an old Latin underground scientific research manual posted for novelty puposes.

I B

 

[illuminati boy]

Ok this cat will probably be busy for the next few days… but feel free to post your comments and slice and dice.

I look forward to some good critiques by Fast and Bulbous, gloggawogga, fizzacyst, BilZ0r, and the rest of the PD and ADD regulars. Who knows we might be able to replace the Official Crappy Research Chemical FAQ with something a little more up to date and useful.

I B

 

[J. Alfred Prufrock]

I think the DOSRS Rating Scale is what would appeal to someone looking to get fucked up. Maybe that's exactly what's needed and what you intended.

You say "While there are currently several accepted scales that can roughly quantify overall level of drug effect, no scale in regular use relates the subject’s overall personal judgment of a material’s worth."

I'd like to hear about these "several accepted scales" to see how they wouldn't measure a material's worth. For example this one:

"Dose-Response Study of N,N-Dimethyltryptamine in Human. II. Subjective Effects and Preliminary Results of a New Rating Scale," Archives of General Psychiatry 51 (1994): 98-108 Rick J. Strassman, Clifford R. Qualls, Eberhard H. Uhlenhuth, and Robert Kellner.

Since you say that there are "several accepted scales", you must have references for them. What are they?

 

[gloggawogga]

Stuck this thread, so it will get more visibility. I'll comment on it if/when I get time.

 

[illuminati boy]

I think the DOSRS Rating Scale is what would appeal to someone looking to get fucked up. Maybe that's exactly what's needed and what you intended.

You say "While there are currently several accepted scales that can roughly quantify overall level of drug effect, no scale in regular use relates the subject’s overall personal judgment of a material’s worth."

I'd like to hear about these "several accepted scales" to see how they wouldn't measure a material's worth. For example this one:

"Dose-Response Study of N,N-Dimethyltryptamine in Human. II. Subjective Effects and Preliminary Results of a New Rating Scale," Archives of General Psychiatry 51 (1994): 98-108 Rick J. Strassman, Clifford R. Qualls, Eberhard H. Uhlenhuth, and Robert Kellner.

Since you say that there are "several accepted scales", you must have references for them. What are they?

A couple of points…

In the above quote ‘in regular use’ really pertains to general non-specialist discussion of ‘Research Chemicals’ on boards such as this or in Trip Reports. One is quite aware of many alternate scales/ways of quantifying drug effects that may be used in academic research or Rx drug trials. One just does not see something like the ACRI Amphetamine Scale or some similar measure catching on in non scholarly discussions. So one created their own scale that met a couple of criteria 1) Simple to apply and understand 2) Fixed data point anchors that are sensible and realistic 3) Small number of response choices with a midpoint and two extreme points 4) Little extra effort required in order to type 5) Communicates important data.

In regard to ‘several accepted scales’ for rating psychedelic compounds one is aware of several scholarly and non-scholarly scales relevant to discussion of psychedelic drugs. Strassman’s Hallucinogen Rating Scale (HRS) (up through version 3.06 anyway), Metzner’s Altered States Graphic Profile (ASGP), Shulgin’s Rating Scale, Graeme Carl’s Psychedelic Level System, Siebert’s SALVIA Experiential Rating Scale, ‘Plateaus,’ etc.

The problem with most of the scales is that they address intensity, types of effects, duration, etc. or discus a specific experience, but do not really specifically focus on the subject’s subjective valuation of the compound in total… or if they do they tend to do so in an unwieldy manner. The 2 scales included above address 2 different things intensity of an acute experience and overall assessment of the compound in question. They may not be perfect or the only such scales, but they are compact and easy to use. Nothing like the DOSRS appears to be in general use on drug discussion boards, so there it is. In specific regard to the other scales mentioned above: Strassman has a beautiful scale… but 100 item questionnaires will not happen outside of clinical trials. Metzner’s scale is ideally for graphing over time. Shulgin’s scale gives an overview of effect intensity but does not say if a compound is worthwhile. Graeme Carl’s System may be particular to a few tryptamines. Siebert’s SALVIA Scale is clearly very drug specific. Etc. At any rate, there is really no compact way that people in a forum like this can communicate their overall subjective rating of a compound other than the DOSRS (so far as one is aware or fits the ideal criterion etc.).

Overall though, one is looking to make a better end product, so if you have some alternate suggestions in the area of scales etc. would love to hear them. Any other feedback would also be greatly appreciated.


I B

(PS Bear in mind that the above treatise was composed rather quickly so one is sure there is plenty of room for both pruning and growth)

 

[J. Alfred Prufrock]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm very impressed by that summary. Excellent work!

 

[nanobrain]

I_B kudos for the massive effort.

once the V1 is condensed and / or this thread is filtered, may i have the privilege of cross-posting to my forums, all author rights reserved, of course?

do what thou wilt

 

[B9]

Thanks to Illuminati Boy.

Well done I B. most impressive and thorough, personally i can't see anything that you've missed, i like the "location in space and time" comment:D .
I reckon that you deserve gratitude for this effort.
So thank you Illuminati Boy, compliments of the season and all that.

zophen.

 

[illuminati boy]

once the V1 is condensed and / or this thread is filtered, may i have the privilege of cross-posting to my forums, all author rights reserved, of course?

Here is the game plan at present: One will pretty much hold off on making any changes to the present draft until about the 1st or 2nd week in January, after people have had sufficient time to comment and add suggestions.

In the interim if people would like to post a link to this thread in other forums and encourage folks the world over to comment that would be great. If any folks suggest some significant revisions that get incorporated into the final draft, one will be more than happy to put their name on this work as well (if they consent).

One’s current plan is to make the final product public domain provided the content is not altered and it contains a link to the original source. It will most likely be ‘housed’ here at BL, but could conceivably end up at Erowid if the final product is sharp enough and they and the consensus here think it appropriate.

So feel free to critique / chop away folks!

I B

 

[spun420833]

Awesome job IB! I can tell you took your time and really put your heart and mind into it. BTW I was giving you plenty of feedback on the dosrs scale when you posted on the temp page. I just didn't bother to register so my posts were coming up as guest. Once again, cheers and kudos.

spun

 

[Fwoosh]

i'm tempted to heckle over some of the finer points (as in distribution... : / ) but for the most part, i congratulate your effort to embetter the situation for everyone. big ups.

 

[illuminati boy]

^ Any particular suggestions? As for that part, one would ideally want to dissuade distribution, but still one wants to suggest harm-reduction approaches for each possible aspect of this subject. The same goes with IV… while one would never recommend it to anyone in any way, it is better that people be informed and aware of the possible hazards.

Again though Fwoosh, if you have any suggestions (even tiny alterations in wording etc.) please feel free to post as one would look forward to seeing them and how well they might do in place of current language.

I B

 

[Toltec]

Thanks for that IB~

 

[specialspack]

Two minor technical points:

1) In the section on "Acquiring compounds", you use the phrase "toe the line" incorrectly. To "toe the line" means to follow the rules, accept the status quo, etc. What I assume you want to use here is some sort of reference to treading a fine line between legal and illegal.;

2) In the methods of ingestion, you have a section called "Pyrolysis/vapourisation". These are not the same - pyrolysis usually refers to decomposition by heat (usually in absence of oxygen), i.e. a chemical change takes place. Pyrolysis of DMT would suggest it breaks down into one or more other chemicals. Vapourisation refers to a change in state (liquid->solid), where there is no chemical change, i.e. the DMT stays as DMT.

More generally, I don't think much of the tone of certain parts of the article, specifically "why become a researcher?" which tends to imply that by purchasing and ingesting these compounds, one is becoming a "researcher", when most of the time one is doing nothing of the sort (unless you are the kind of person who likes to take the highest dose possible to test the safety limits of the drug 8( ). There's nothing wrong with ingesting these chemicals for recreation, self-development or spiritual purposes, but I don't think it should be dressed up as scientific research, which it clearly is not. Most of the time single experience reports add very little to what we know about the effects of these drugs, mainly because they are highly subjective and variable.

Otherwise, very well done!

 

[gloggawogga]

More generally, I don't think much of the tone of certain parts of the article, specifically "why become a researcher?" which tends to imply that by purchasing and ingesting these compounds, one is becoming a "researcher", when most of the time one is doing nothing of the sort (unless you are the kind of person who likes to take the highest dose possible to test the safety limits of the drug ). There's nothing wrong with ingesting these chemicals for recreation, self-development or spiritual purposes, but I don't think it should be dressed up as scientific research, which it clearly is not. Most of the time single experience reports add very little to what we know about the effects of these drugs, mainly because they are highly subjective and variable.

Actually, I'd take what you're saying here another step. I think we need to throw out the term "research chemical", and replace it with something along the lines of "unresearched chemical". Because "unresearched chemicals" is essentially what these chemicals are, and with language like that there wouldn't be any confusion about it. The term "research chemical" was originally coined by vendors to try to legitimatize the sale of their products. That failed anyways, and the term was never meant to imply that people who use these drugs are doing any sort of "research". The term has outlived its usefullness and is grossly misleading. I think this document would be a good chance to get rid of it and replace it with something else. And I think the term "unresearched chemical" would be a more accurate replacement, because thats essentially what these substances really are.


So IOW, what I'm suggesting would for the most part involve replacing the term "research chemical" everywhere in the document, including the title, with the term "unresearched chemical". So the new name of the document would be "Safer Unresearched Chemical User's Guide", etc. etc.

 

[B9]

^But will people ever change such a long standing association?
You will(for this to be successful) have to get the agreement of erowid and others or the result will be confusion , which would clearly be undesirable.
Personally i feel that you may have a point in that the "casual" user of RCs would be less likely to consider taking an "unresearched" chemical.
Good luck.


zophen

 

[Toltec]

Changing the name from research chemical to un-researched chemical is a good idea, after all RC's imply something tested by people or animals already. If i was to hear the term Un-researched chemical I would have done allot more thinking about how it could effect me.

The nature of these chemicals helps one change the way "You See" the world. so UC sounds a bit more accurate then RC's do.

Seriously though, Zophen has a good point!

 

[gloggawogga]

^But will people ever change such a long standing association?

I see what you are saying, and thats why I thought doing so in this document before its published in any sort of official way would be a good opportunity try to get the term to catch on.

You will(for this to be successful) have to get the agreement of erowid and others or the result will be confusion , which would clearly be undesirable.

I don't see how it would create too much confusion. Terms are interchangable. The term "designer drug" is still usable if you want to use it. If we start by changing the term in this document to "unresearched chemical", and clarify why we use the term that way in this document, its not going to cause older documents using the term "research chemical" to be confusing. Plus, if you can get erowid or others to pick up the change in a few of their documents, the change would catch on.

Personally i feel that you may have a point in that the "casual" user of RCs would be less likely to consider taking an "unresearched" chemical.

That, and that these kids think they are pioneers walking in the moon or something when they "research" these chemicals.

Anyways, I just thought I'd throw the idea in the water. I'm gonna start calling them "unresearched chemicals" wherever I discuss them, whether it catches on or not.

 

[illuminati boy]

Reply to specialspack's points.

specialspack:

With regard to Point 1... actually one has heard it generally contextually used to roughly refer to coming close to breaking a rule… either by being just inside or just outside of bounds as it were. But not a big deal either way… may change it.

With regard to Point 2… pure forehead slap on that one! Went out of my way to distinguish between vaporizing and chemical transformation and then labeled it “Pyrolized.” Good one I B. Good catch specialspack. Will definitely be corrected in the finalized version.

With regard to the more general critique… yea a credit card and some Google savvy does not really make one a researcher. There are several reasons for the organization as such though. Wanted to convey that anyone looking into ‘researching’ these compounds better have an approach of disciplined seriousness. Wanted to stress that these are not well known agents (see also response to gloggawogga below). Also wanted to follow the theme of a parody of an old early Renaissance research treatise for ones own goofy aesthetic reasons (quite shocked that some good Latinists have yet to take me to task for my liberal use of the language in the title). Further, while many people are interested in so called ‘Research Chemicals’ for personal exploration, recreation, and/or spiritual growth and development; there really are some pharmacological nerds out there that are really interested in the science, real rats and all! Also, yes single research reports are not very useful… but remember that this writer has been consistently working toward a method of collecting aggregate data about somatic effects, ‘primary’ effects, ‘side’ effects etc. with the intent of comparing to both inactive and active placebo control data from Rx drug trials of psychotropic compounds.

Want to thank you again for your thoughtful comments (especially the good catch on Point 2). Each of them is something to think about.

I B