haribo1 said:
BTCP, the PCP analog (or better still it's pyrollidine analog) are supposed to substitute for cocaine in rats and lasts 6 hours. The antidepressant Aminepitine is supposed to give a good high when you begin treatment and is associated with addiction. I wonder a lot about aminepitine, I keep thinking that amongst the research papers will be some more euphoriant analogs. Easy to make and legal.
Oh and CFT can, apparently be made stronger and longer lasting by replacing the methyl ester with an isopropyl ester. I'm looking for the link but it was somewhere reputable.
In one of the animal studies of BTCP, there was excess mortality in the BTCP treated rats over the cocaine or saline treated rats. On examination there was evidence of damage to the GI system and the liver.
(psychpharmacology 1999 145 p 370-377)
There is also evidence that unlike cocaine BTCP is not a substrate type dopamine and NE releaser. Anecdotal reports suggest that BTCP is almost without effect in humans.
CFT is just one of a huge family of phenyl tropanes, stronger is a difficult thing to quantify, it is not potency, DOB for example is 20 times more potent than 2-cb it is not 20 times stronger, it just requires 20 times less to give the same effect. If potency is the measure then replacing the methyl with ethyl or isopropoxy increases the potency, replacing the entire ester moiety with a short alkene or aryl alkene also increases potency and duration of action. replacing the ester moiety with a cyclic bioisostere such as the oxazoline group increases duration without effecting potency.
the para substituent on the phenyl can also be replaced with iodine or methyl or pretty much anything. CFT has a lot of papers on it because of the fluorine can be replaced with radiofluorine and then used as a marker in PET scanning, supposedly CFT scanning to reveal the DAT density can reveal parkinsons disease earlier.
from memory I think the parachloro and its metabolically soft isostere paramethyl are more potent than CFT.
It is often the case that the most potent analogue is not the most interesting but it is in the world of research ligands, SAR and receptor mapping, because the theory is that the most potent ligand is closest in shape to the binding site and therefore finding more and more potent ligands can allow the binding site to be mapped. Whether the most potent ligand is ligands the most valuable pharmaceutical is another matter entirely, DOI versus DOC for example.
