Safest 2c-x? (I know, I know...)

[arohydro]

Okay, so I've been wanting to try one of the 2c drugs, but I am trying to ascertain which drug I should try, and of course safety is paramount.

Anyway, there's plenty of scare with phenethylamines and their potential for neurotoxicity, so I ask, despite the lack of any real research or hard data (that I know of), what is the SPECULATION regarding these drugs and their potential for damage? Which do you folks think has the least potential for harm?

I realize that one or two doses will have no appreciable effect on cognition even if they happen to be somewhat neurotoxic, but if I order 500 mg I'll want to use it all.

How about other risks associated with 2c-x usage?

Thanks guys.

 

[solistus]

While you are correct to say there is not a lot of hard data in terms of direct formal research on the health effects over the long term of consuming any 2Cs except arguably 2C-B (it's been the subject of at least occasional research since the 1960s, at least), the general belief is that most of them are probably equally safe.

The only 2C I know of with a lot of specific evidence pointing to it being uniquely harmful is 2C-T-7, which is also one of the few 2Cs that is scheduled in the US (along with 2C-B). The most popular three, at least among the BL crowd, seem to be 2C-E, 2C-I and 2C-T-2. -T-2 is known to have a fairly heavy bodyload for many. -I and -E are both thought to be pretty close to equally safe to their better studied cousins 2C-B and mescaline, so long as they aren't combined recklessly with certain drugs like MAOIs or taken at absurd doses (although I still know of only anecdotal cases of anything worse than one would expect from taking stupidly high doses of any psychedelic and don't know of any deaths attributed solely to a 2C besides 2C-T-7).

In general, I'd say pretty much all of the 2Cs, at least the ones still unscheduled in the US, are about equal on any rational harm scale - they bear any unknown harms with the 2C family in general (unlikely to be many IMO since -B is almost as well studied now as LSD) and perhaps any weird unknown harms due to the specific differences in each one (some other receptor activity or unique metabolite that accumulates and causes problems down the road, perhaps, I dunno), but there's no rational way I can think of to rank their relative harms besides how popular they are with a reputation as probably quite safe.

I don't want to take a legitimate thread into against the rules territory by recommending drugs to you, but IMHO 2C-I and 2C-E would get the marginal nod among 2Cs besides -B and -T-7 and the rest would be almost equal and all about the same, I guess (the less popular ones like -C, -D, -P, etc. or -T-2 with its slightly higher prevalence of bodyload issues). 2C-B is probably the safest of them all since it's the one with the longest and most thorough history of official study, but it's also Schedule I and harder to find in the US since most of its cousins are legal anyway. 2C-T-7 is obviously the least safe - it's the only 2C that's almost indisputably directly killed people.

Completely unscientific, anecdotal note: in my experience and the experience of all the 2C users I've talked to personally - off this forum, at least - seem to agree that it does not feel or seem at all toxic, none of them personally attribute any lasting negative physical effects or symptoms to their 2C use and none of them has ever had any medical or subjective reason to suspect 2Cs have harmed them in any way beyond perhaps kicking their ego in the ass with a tough trip or making them vomit and/or get minor unpleasant symptoms while the drug is still active. Certainly nothing that created serious concern for their health or well-being from them or any nearby parties.

 

[strangedays_indeed]

EEEE and EYE are worth ingesting and 'relatively' safe hence the name research chemicals but im pretty sure if you are putting any 'street' psychedelic compounds into your body you dont REALLY care about unknown affects of RESEARCH chemicals.

 

[Saucy]

It is likely that all of the 2C-x compounds have similar levels of toxicity, with the 2C-halides (I,C, and B) being indistinguishable in this regard and the 2C-alkanes (D, and E) likewise being comparable in terms of toxicity. These simple 2C's are generally accepted to have a low level of toxicity. To give you a ballpark idea, they are likely somewhat more toxic than most tryptamines and lysergamides, and definitely less toxic than MDxx and bk-MDxx compounds for instance.

The 2C-T-x (thioalkane) compounds are considerably less safe than their simpler substituted cousins, and most have at least some deaths associated with their use (usually in combination with one or more strong stimulants). I believe that this is because they exhibit selective monoamine oxidase inhibition, which can cause a hypertensive crisis in high enough doses/combinations due to the contraindicated stimulant + MAOI effect.

The dihydrofuran and tetrahydrofuran 2C's ("flies" and "dragonflies", not necessarily respectively) are far less researched than the 2C's lacking the tell-tale wing structures. I would stay away from these. They are very potent, and it appears much more toxic than the earlier generation 2C's.

The alpha-methylated 2C's (DOB, DOI, DOM, etc) last a LOT longer and are a LOT more potent than their phenethylamine counterparts. I would suspect that they are also considerably more toxic, although I would speculate that this is to a lesser degree than with the flies and dragonflies.

The alpha-methyled, winged 2C's (Bromo-Dragonfly and the like) are VERY VERY VERY TOXIC, and have been known to cause severe adverse reactions including deaths in the accepted dosage range of the first-gen 2C's. It seems that Shulgin got it right the first time, but you can bet that China is going to continue churning out increasingly toxic substituted phenethylamine varients until they produce something so toxic that you can die just from looking at it, at which point all of these wonderful RC's are going to get scheduled, but I digress.

So, to answer your question, 2C-B is well researched and is believed to be safe. A little knowledge of chemistry and neuropharmocology will tell you that this means that 2C-I and 2C-C are also safe. 2C-E has a pretty well documented history of use, with little to no reported health problems caused by its use. By associative corrolary, 2C-D would have a near-identical safety profile to 2C-E. These are all a pretty safe bet. And to reiterate, if safety is your highest priority, then the 2C-T-X compounds should not be your first choice, although for a healthy individual who is using them responsibly, they also pose a pretty minimal risk. And it is apparently not that good for you to eat flies, so hydrofuran rings and safety seem not to go hand-in-hand when it comes to psychedelic phenethylamines.

Time to pass out for the next 20 hours.

Saucy out.

 

[Amberthefrog]

It's worth noting that there is at least the possibility that all or most of the 2c-t-x's may have MAOI activity. In Pihkal, Shulgin makes brief note of a pretty bad physical response to (I think) 16 mg of 2c-p, which isn't a massive dose compared to what people have taken the halogenated 2c's to without such complications. MGS's report on 2c-n also begs some questions.

 

[Liquid Sunshine]

Honestly, so long as you avoid a lot of the flies you should be good. Most of the oldschool 2cx's are pretty safe.

 

[guerillabedlam]

While you are correct to say there is not a lot of hard data in terms of direct formal research on the health effects over the long term of consuming any 2Cs except arguably 2C-B (it's been the subject of at least occasional research since the 1960s, at least), the general belief is that most of them are probably equally safe.

How has 2c-b been researched since the 1960's when it was synthesized in the 1970's?

 

[arohydro]

Thanks for all of the wonderful replies, guys! You are all so helpful. : )

Now, my curiosity extends to 4-AcO-DMT, AKA acetylpsilocin. What, if anything, could be said of the safety of this drug? Would it be possible to degrade this chemical into psilocin for safer administration? This is, of course, assuming that 4-AcO-DMT has action of its own (and reports on subjective effects seem to support this hypothesis), and that that action has a narrower safety profile than psilocin itself (which seems unlikely).

How has 2c-b been researched since the 1960's when it was synthesized in the 1970's?

Would also like to know this. I'll dig around as best I can on my own, though.

 

[Amberthefrog]

4-AcO-DMT

Would imagine this is very safe, I mean no one can say for sure but 4-x-DMT's tend to be physically benign. Even if the above does have it's own independent pharmacology to 4-HO-DMT, it's still going to be rapidly hydrolyzed to 4-HO-DMT, implying a good safety margin.

 

[Saucy]

Now, my curiosity extends to 4-AcO-DMT, AKA acetylpsilocin. What, if anything, could be said of the safety of this drug? Would it be possible to degrade this chemical into psilocin for safer administration? This is, of course, assuming that 4-AcO-DMT has action of its own (and reports on subjective effects seem to support this hypothesis), and that that action has a narrower safety profile than psilocin itself (which seems unlikely).

4-aco-dmt is probably one of the safest drugs in existence. You could trip hunderds of times on this substance without any adverse effects.

 

[solistus]

How has 2c-b been researched since the 1960's when it was synthesized in the 1970's?

My mistake, you're right - 2C-B wasn't synthesised until 1974, perhaps I was thinking of 2C-H or a completely unrelated compound.

At any rate, 2C-B is definitely the best studied of the 2Cs by a wide margin - I just should have said since the _70's_, my bad.

 

[any major dude]

In Pihkal, Shulgin makes brief note of a pretty bad physical response to (I think) 16 mg of 2c-p, which isn't a massive dose compared to what people have taken the halogenated 2c's to without such complications. MGS's report on 2c-n also begs some questions.

The 16mg "physical disaster" report was a misprint. The subject relived a traumatic memory of a natural disaster and freaked out a bit IIRC. That being said, 2c-p is more potent than the other alkylated 2c's, so its still wise to be more careful with it.

 

[solistus]

It wasn't a misprint, that's the phrase the subject used, it just wasn't of any suspected physiological cause - a physically nightmarish trip (iirc the subject relived the pain and trauma of a bookshelf or some other piece of furniture falling on them as a kid and causing severe injuries), but no persisting problems and it was believed to be a psychosomatic incident rather than any evidence of physical toxicity, etc. At any rate, some people do seem to get nasty physical symptoms from potent doses of 2Cs (16mg 2C-P is like double the pihkal range for that substance, which is 6-10mg iirc), but there's no evidence I know of that points to this being of any lasting health concern. Many drugs can cause pain, soreness or other physical symptoms without causing any significant physiological harm.

 

[MescalitoBandito]

From a purely psychological perspective, 2ci seems to be the least intense. As others have said, none of these should be considered remotely safe given the data we have; however, my friends all agree that 2ci is much more predictable and generally upbeat than 2ce, which can get pretty weird. Also, 2ci's dose-response curve seems far more generous than that of 2ce.