• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | someguyontheinternet

Should RC naming questions be allowed in ADD?

^^I disagree. I think that's bullshit and dangerous.

Ignoring those requests increases the chance for a mis-ID. This thread has shown that even experienced people can make mistakes in this area., especially when vendors intentionally write the product names in as crytpic a way possible.

See here for a more thorough description of my argument.
 
^Chuang, its not the vendos its the copy - pasters, who in turn expand unnecessary awareness of such chemicals, to customs / LE for example, when discussed on common drug boards.

basic research should be the poster's apriori responsibility.
 
One’s concern is less about LE and more about some numb nuts kid who doesn’t know anything about anything logging on to a site like this (or more likely a different board) and asking everyone and their brother to PM them sources… They check out one of the links and it has say 1-(4-chloro-2,5-dimethoxy phenyl)propane-2-amine. Well they don’t know what that is and are too lazy to find out so they post asking what it is. Someone says ‘oh yeah that’s another way to say DOC.’ Stupid kid proceeds to order a bunch on mommy’s credit card. When it arrives it looks like such a small amount… oh well must have gotten shorted… better only do half of that 100 mg. bag ‘just to be safe.’ Kid ends up in the hospital or worse and instead of either the kid or their parents taking responsibility for their poor choices… they phone the local media… ‘There are evil internet drug fiends preying on innocent kids… bla bla bla.’

Given that the above appears increasingly likely (especially with the DOx compounds) the question is what board policies will decrease the likelihood of that happening?

Just look a few posts back:

blab said:
2C-I

2C-C

4 meo dipt

Don’t know if blab got all three chemicals wrong or was just being smart… but imagine a scenario where a poster who is fairly well educated about dosing, effects, etc. mistakes a DOx compound for one of its 2C counterparts… 40 mg. of 2C-C sounds like a good starting dose…

One has personally been adopting the policy that if you don’t know what it is, you don’t get help figuring it out… but this has its risks as well though they probably limit personal liability…

Clearly one is for education and information… but is wary of the old maxim “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

Don’t know… just tossing out ideas at this point…

I B
 
Yeah, a little information is a dangerous thing, but none is worse. Still in the end, the poster got the information he was after, and it was the correct information.

We are not helping anyone sell drugs, we are helping someone know what drug they are getting, and hence, hopefully, the correct amount to use.


There is harm reduction value in this thread. Threads like this are allowed.
 
blab said:
i believe the poster who started this threat knows what the chemicals are. how would he happen to stumble upon a certain vendor website and know to post on bluelight?

^Happens all the time...

If these threads are going to stay open in ADD the forum may get flooded as in PD I think genaro and many others have had threads closed for asking which IUPAC formulae = which more common designations.

Also, as blab pointed out a few posts back we need to make sure that the information that is given out is accurate… a 2C-I / DOI or 2C-C / DOC mix-up would really hurt…

I B
 
BilZ0r said:
Yeah, a little information is a dangerous thing, but none is worse. Still in the end, the poster got the information he was after, and it was the correct information.

We are not helping anyone sell drugs, we are helping someone know what drug they are getting, and hence, hopefully, the correct amount to use.


There is harm reduction value in this thread. Threads like this are allowed.

This is ridiculous. We can't have differing policy in PD and ADD on this surely?

Personally, I think that banning these type of threads is the way to go, but it should be at least consistent.
 
We can have differing policies, it's the whole nature of the board. Threads that are allowed in Ecstasy Discussion wouldn't be allowed in the lounge, and vice versa.
 
Well yes, there are different posting policies for the different boards, but some things are global - eg no suppllier discussion, and I would have thought this is pretty close to that?

I don't know, I'm just worried that people will start posting all these threads in ADD instead of PD.
 
I think it shouldn't be allowed just because it's so incredibly self-serving. Although, DB is a pretty relaxed forum where "no question is a dumb question", so it might just fit right in overthere. I don't think it's of much value to ADD, but that's just my opinion.
 
But this isn't supplier disucssion. This is, "what is this chemical also called".
 
slimmony_pickens said:
…because I know where to get some, and I want to know what I'm getting.

slimmony_pickens said:
You were right, it was a cut and paste error, there was alot of bullshit at the end. I was "doing research" with google, et al, and after identifying DPT, Bromo D-Fly, and 2C-B-FLY, I came up empty on the others…
Now I can't wait to go and mix them all together and drink them down with a beer!

Well it is obvious that in this case it is clearly supplier discussion…

As to the general concern about answering general chemical questions or not... it is a tough question… So here goes some impromptu Pro/Con for allowing such questions…

PRO: May lead to some harm reduction in assuring accurate information. Is in line with the mission of accurate education. Seems to be pretty basic i.e. is XYZ also called ABC.

CON: If inaccurate information is given out could lead to a real disaster (especially something along the lines of a 2C-x DOx mix-up). May lead to more direct supplier discussion. May lead to 1,000 copies of the same type of post (at which point to we bust out the “UTFSE” or continue to answer the same dozen or so questions?).

I am sure there are more of each… but just to get the ball rolling. For the record I strongly lean to the ‘do your own research’ camp… but neither horn of this dilemma looks all that appetizing.

I B
 
Well yeah the guy wanted to know the answer to help him in his purchasing habits, but the same could be said for half the threads in Ecstasy Discussion or Other drugs...

The problem with that first con is that its inherent if the answer isnt given, i.e. on that point, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Any by judging from the number of mistakes people made, naming questions are relatively hard, and so its quite likely that someone wouldn't be able to answer the question on their own.
 
If they were asking about the true IUPAC name, then yes it would be valid, but they weren't the IUPAC name, they were the form used by a vendor. What illuminati boy outlined in his post about ignorant 16 year olds getting their parents credit card has already happened (see here ), only the ignorant one in this case sold it to someone else as MDMA and nearly killed them.

When people ask these sort of questions, I'm of the opinion that they should be directed to a site about understanding organic nomenclature or similar; if they can't be bothered learning what's the absolute minimum to safely identify the compounds they shouldn't get any help on the subject.
 
We are not helping anyone sell drugs, we are helping someone know what drug they are getting, and hence, hopefully, the correct amount to use.

I agree completely.

Anyone who has to ask such questions should also be given recommended dosages, basic precautions, and if possible an accurate reference (or 2) that's interpretable. Seems an easy way to educate IMO.

In seven years of working outreach in HR/HM, I've found the most difficult thing about disseminating HR/HM information is just to get someones attention. When they come to you however, whatever bland truths are revealed, most often the ears stay open...

The bottom line is that these substances often have relatively high potencies and toxicities. Surely it's worth informing an inquirer of anything that may be relevant in this regard. Giving out a street name for a IUPAC title (if one exists) can hardly be considered promoting a vendors product. There are usually several vendors selling the same substances - or at least they do once popularity is realised. Unless it's an exclusive product, it's simply a compound, & subject to local law, able to marketed by anyone.

When people ask these sort of questions, I'm of the opinion that they should be directed to a site about understanding organic nomenclature or similar; if they can't be bothered learning what's the absolute minimum to safely identify the compounds they shouldn't get any help on the subject.

In some respects f&b's first statement is not a bad idea at all. However, as we all know, even many of the well educated among us can have trouble interpreting some IUPAC names - not to mention other nomenclature. Practice makes perfect of course, but realistically, is this too much to ask of someone merely wishing to select & obtain drug X and consume it safely?

Harm Reduction/minimization whatever you want to call it, is fundamentally about information sharing. Telling someone they aren't mature, smart enough etc to be given information totally contradicts this. If a little information is dangerous, then spoon feed them with the basics first, or at least direct them to the info.

For this forum to work well (and I believe it has to date) it should appreciate that the term advanced means different things to different people - often regardless of their academic status. A person may have a masters in neurophysiology, but has hardly looked at organic chem beyond what was required for the degree. I know a GP's or two that can't even pronounce a long name, little lone work it out from looking at the molecule. So to many, nomenclature can still be a daunting subject, particularly if the discipline they studied used a different naming system. Shit, when I did first year chem, there where some compounds - relatively simple at that - where even the lecturers argued over the correct title.
 
^ To add to the confusion some of the vendors appear to use subtle variations on the IUPAC nomenclature… Again one’s big fear is something like a 2Cx DOx mix-up…

{EDIT} This is why DB should probably not be the preferred venue, if such questions were to be allowed. Even BilZ0r did a bit of a forehead slap on the 4-AcO-MiPT with the isopropyl before the methyl… in DB one could see all sorts of mix-ups occurring on these.

I B
 
Last edited:
There is harm reduction value in this thread. Threads like this are allowed.

We can do harm reducton by discussing good vendors vs. bad vendors. Should we do that? Harm reduction is fine, but not when its about vendors. And these threads have repeatedly lead to vendor discussion in PD. If someone can't use a search engine to identify these chemicals, then we need to tell them to learn how to use a search engine. That will accomplish more harm reduction. Harm reduction isn't just handing people answers on a platter, its teaching them to think for themselves.

Another thing we could to is post all of the alternate drug names in a FAQ somewhere and then when somebody posts one of these threads close the thread and refer them to the FAQ.
 
Last edited:
Another thing we could to is post all of the alternate drug names in a FAQ somewhere and then when somebody posts one of these threads close the thread and refer them to the FAQ.
That's a perfectly good idea, and if and when there are enough threads like the one that spawned this thread, I might just do that; but I don't see any difference.

If you're worried about possible vendor discussion, fear not, I check this forum several times a day, and anyone discussing vendors will find their post gone and CLAWSed.
 
Top