• 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 | someguyontheinternet

Some Interesting 2C-T Analogues (Chemical Masturbation)

Morninggloryseed

Morninggloryseed

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 22, 2000
Messages
13,772
Location
Semi Retired
Just for my own chemical masturbation purposes...what do ya'll think of these. Of course A is good old friendly 2C-T...which in someone's poor judgment has never come to market (while things like 2C-N and 2C-G have). B is the simple thiol as proposed by Shulgin. I have no idea if that kind of group would be active, but he must have thought it may be, since he felt it was worth mentioning. D was proposed in this forum somewhere before, and from that I came up with C.

Anyone want to take some gross guestimates as to the activity of B,C, and D? Obviously no one can do anything beyond guess...so does anyone guess they will be active. Talk amongst yourselves.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 2C-T Analogues.JPG
    2C-T Analogues.JPG
    32.4 KB · Views: 1,531
I think I've read that a CF3 group is functionally very similar to a Br. I wonder what a SF5 group compares to ... it probably sucks up the electron density of the whole damn molecule right there. I'm sure it would be active though. I bet it would be similar in size to an iodine group there seeing as the thio atom is quite a bit bigger than a carbon.
 
Dondante said:
I think I've read that a CF3 group is functionally very similar to a Br. I wonder what a SF5 group compares to ... it probably sucks up the electron density of the whole damn molecule right there. I'm sure it would be active though. I bet it would be similar in size to an iodine group there seeing as the thio atom is quite a bit bigger than a carbon.
Click to expand...

The iodine is a big one.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    37.7 KB · Views: 1,463
I'm afraid the 4-SH would be way too toxic.
A (2C-ALEPH-1) is gonna be weak and probably boring.
Are you sure the perflouro sulfur compounds exist?
If they do, they are not bulky, but I won't venture to guess about their activity.
 
Yeah, it probably is nice.
You might have better luck with 2C-(S-CF3) though.
 
Last edited:
^lol.

Speaking of the 2CT's, did Shulgin ever explore 2C-(S-CH2CH2CH2CH3)?
I would be careful with that one.

See also DOx, where x=(O-CF3)--not a 2CT, I know.

All of this assumes that Ar-S-CF3's and Ar-O-CF3's exist.
I've never heard of any, but I really don't know.
 
Last edited:
morninggloryseed said:
The iodine is a big one.

attachment.php
Click to expand...

Why does the amine end face differently for 2C-T? Is it a quirk of the program you used, or does the chemistry cause this configuration?
 
With organic structures, you can flip them over however you want as long as everything's in the right place.
 
The molecules are actually in constant motion but there are no chiral centers in the 2Cs, so what position that amine is in is not as important as it would be had I shown amphetamines. If I had drawn an amphetamine, I would have made sure to represent the R-isomer.
 
morninggloryseed said:
Of course A is good old friendly 2C-T...which in someone's poor judgment has never come to market (while things like 2C-N and 2C-G have).
Click to expand...

Confucius say "seek and ye shall find, MGS-hopper..."

It's out there (hint hint) ;)
 
How to make the SF3 & SF5 compounds? SF6 exists and finds specialist use in high-tension electronics. I guess you could make a sulfonic (trifluoromethyl?) and flouridate that. Whatever, I suspect they would be very difficult to make.
 
2C-T sounds pretty unspectacular to me. Didn't shulgin call it the "generic psychedelic"? I have a feeling that complexity of the trip increases as you extend the carbon chain attached to the sulfer, an toxicity increases as well.

Aelph seems more interesting.
 
I think 2C-T sounds very interesting. It actually sounds a bit like 2C-D but with more empathy stirred in.

Compound 2 (the -SH group) is going to have a hell of a time getting across the BBB. Thiophenols might not be as acidic as phenols, but it's still a polar group. Not a clue about how an SF5 group would interact with the receptor (yes SF6 is used in HV electricty setups - think as some sort of dielectric), but intuitively something seems not quite right about it for some reason...
 
I found 3-CH3-S-methamphetamine to be very boring.
One of Shulgin's friends said the same thing about the ALEPHs.
 
2-C-T entry from PIHKAL:
(with 75 mg) I got up to a thin and fragile plus two, but there was a continuing feeling of a hooded cloak brought down over my head. Nothing obvious--it is transparent--but it somehow separated me from everything around me. I do not think the overall experiment was worth it.

(with 100 mg) Material all right, but a little bit along the lines of a 'generic' psychedelic effect. Sharper edges than 2C-B. The one true negative, which has been pretty consistent with this drug, is that there is a certain emotional removal. One teeny step removed. One is connected with feelings, certainly, but there is a tendency for the intellect to be more evident, in me, than the heart. All this is moderately so. Nothing extreme. Pretty good material, but there are more inter-esting ones. However, if you are looking for a really short one, this is one of the answers. For most people. For me, it's still around 5 to 6 hours long. I wish we had more shorties, indeed.

(with 125 mg) There was some physical tummy uncertainty, but once that was past, talking was extremely easy. This is probably really psychedelic, but I am not really sure why, as there is not much in the way of visuals. Dropping was noted just after hour number three, and I was at baseline three hours later.
Click to expand...
 
Dondante said:
2C-T sounds pretty unspectacular to me. Didn't shulgin call it the "generic psychedelic"? I have a feeling that complexity of the trip increases as you extend the carbon chain attached to the sulfer, an toxicity increases as well.

Aelph seems more interesting.
Click to expand...

Yeah he said that of 2C-D as well and he was very wrong. I agree with F&B...I'd expect it (2C-T) to be much like 2C-D but with the added warmth/empathy the 2C-Ts seem to provice.
 
The one true negative, which has been pretty consistent with this drug, is that there is a certain emotional removal. One teeny step removed.
Click to expand...
That doesn't sound empathogenic to me, just the opposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top