• 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

Stimulants of the Future

Status
Not open for further replies.
Right, the they share the same azabicyclo[2.2.2]Octane structure. If N-oxidation (to the quaternary amine) now it's 1-hydroxy-4-phenyl-1-azoniabicyclo[2.2.2]octane which isn't all that different from MPP+ anymore. Is the aromatic 1-methyl pyridinium structure what makes it neurotoxic or could another quaternary structure be neurotoxic as well?

For some reason I actually hope this hasn't been researched. Seems like animal cruelty to induce parkinson's in fellow primates.


edit: those 4-phenylquinuclidines are mentioned in one patent as potent analgesics. Sure, it's possible they're not opioids, but it seems most likely.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I see now that this compound would more likely not be a stimulant.

But I'm still interested in fencamfamine analogues: are there any?
Actually, tranylcypromine is quite similar, it just has a cyclopropane instead of the norbornane. How about something in the between, like cyclopentane, cyclobutane or cyclohexane? Or does it have to be a bicyclic ring for the stimulant effects?
 
Not that I'm aware of, though the cyclohexane is an obvious area of interest! I'm really amazed it hasn't been seen as an RC yet.
 
Recently I spoke to a Chinese custom synthesis company. I was told that they are working on a large scale-up in the production of 2-DPMP (aka desoxypipradrol). So this shit will probably soon flood the stimulants market. Thank god they don't know certain tricks of the synthesis yet!
 
Hammilton said:
Not that I'm aware of, though the cyclohexane is an obvious area of interest! I'm really amazed it hasn't been seen as an RC yet.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the synth shouldn't be that hard either. Cyclohexane and cyclopentane should both be interesting, and each of them with either n-methyl or n-ethyl, and all the different diastereomers of them... there's a lot of research to be done here.

edit. Heh, I just realized that the cyclohexane would also be a direct structural analogue of PCE...
 
Last edited:
Why would they do a large scale up in synthesis of 2-DPMP? It has it's merits, but is not something the general population wants or should have easy access to. I don't see it becoming very popular, but if it did it'll be a fucking mess. Sleep deprived paranoics wandering the streets. Unless they already received a large order, I'd say it's a miss.
 
^ Because it is becoming popular :\

If it does get turned out en masse though, I know I'm going to end up wishing I'd never opened my mouth about the stuff


How about something in the between, like cyclopentane, cyclobutane or cyclohexane?
Click to expand...

There's already been a clinically used alicyclic stimulant, namely cypenamine (2-phenylcyclopentylamine). The N-alkylated versions might have some decent properties. As can be seen, the bibcyclic structure isn't essential, but having a rigid ring structure must confer some properties otherwise why bother with fencamfamine and just go for 2-phenylcycloheylamine instead as it's much easier to synth

PS Quinuclidine isn't a similar structure to the bicyclic ring structure of fenmcamfamine as quinuclidine has a 2 carbon bridge forming the bicyclic structure whereas fencamfamine has only a single carbon ring spanning bridge


PPS Tranylcypromine isn't the same as fencamfamine (fcf) or cypenamine as the cyclopropyl ring makes the compound a non competetive MAOI whereas cypenamine/fcf are only weak competetive inhibitors. Tranylcypromine puts more people in hospital than any other non-competetive inhibitor and is best left well alone unless hypertensive crises & CVA are your thing
 
fastandbulbous said:
^ Because it is becoming popular :\

If it does get turned out en masse though, I know I'm going to end up wishing I'd never opened my mouth about the stuff
Click to expand...

Haha... I would too... even though Shulgin mentioned it, I think your early musings on it made it catch on. Perhaps time to make ADD restricted for viewing in some way?

Either way I don't see it becoming very mainstream. A smaller group of tweakers might like it alot, and some who like the gentle lift of small doses, but I don't think it appeals very much to the general party crowd.
 
Last edited:
OK, I drew these just for giggles. Some of these should be good as stimulants. Pick your favorite and start saving for a custom synth... :D

fencamfanalogs.gif
 
Lower row, 1st and 2nd from the left:
You better check geometries of sp2-hybridized carbon again! I'm afraid that ring strain would make those more than difficult to make. The other 2 in the lower row are unsual, too. I'd like to see some suggestions on economically feasible synthesis of those...if such discussion would be allowed here. So, rhetorical comment.
But generally spoken, I don't think that these are valuable targets.

The first row...ummm...okay but IIRC will the steric demand in the beta-position decrease activity.

- Murphy
 
^ How much longer? There are cocaine derived DARIs that are reckoned to act for a couple of days.

Probably something like amfonelic acid would fill the gap you're hoping to fill as long as you don't want the local anaesthetic action (which is where a lot of cocaine's toxicity resides)
 
if only it were cheap enough for the RC market to put out... At least this means it should stay legal.
 
MurphyClox said:
Lower row, 1st and 2nd from the left:
You better check geometries of sp2-hybridized carbon again! I'm afraid that ring strain would make those more than difficult to make.
Click to expand...
I revoke this particular statement! Was some kinda confused but it is obviously possible to build such ring-systems. Sorry! :\
 
Whats everyone think about the 4-fluro range of RC's like 4flurococaine and 4-fluor-methamp that seems to be getting added to everything does that make it legal or what. sorry for sounded dumb i am dumb right now.
and what health risk does the 4-fluro add or is it a more safer version. I wonder alot aobut this 4flurococaine 60 times more stronger sounds like a heart attack in one ay. from what i heard 4fluro drugs are bad for heart and coke is toxic as for heart destroying tissue on contact of the heart.
 
With (dopaminergic)stimulants 3,4-dihalo increases potency; 3,4-dichloro is generally the most potent substitutent. Para-fluoro generally results in a more serotonergic nature for the simpler PEA derived stimulants.

With the tropane stimulants, I wouldn't worry so much about increased toxicity, it should actually be much less. Because it's not something that increases local anaesthetic activity, you're actually reducing the damage on the heart vs. cocaine.

However, with the PEA derived stimulants para-halo is *generally* something that increases toxicity. para-fluoro is the safest of these, by far, and doesn't display the toxic effects that things like para-chloro-phenylalanine or para-chloro-amphetamine does.
 
What do you guys think about Bromantane? It seems to me that a stimulant that mainly targets dopamine and serotonin should be really smooth, without noradrenaline, while the serotonin is calming, like meth vs amph. Or am I terribly wrong here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top