• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Phenethylamines The Big & Dandy 3C-P Thread

update: i have just heard about a 40mg trial. the subject lived to tell about it, described it as mostly a physical high, and said they would do it again, possibly even at a higher dose. warning: this is all second hand rumor and should be taken at face value with several grains of salt. %)
 
I really want to start experimenting with this, but I've been having some problems with my blood pressure and amphetamines (of any kind) are on my not-to-do list. My expectations for this substance are not too high though.
 
fine.... here's some info + negatives. the experience seems to last around 16+hrs. the high only lasts say 4, but there is a slight glow that extends for 12+ which makes sleep wholly impossible. Nothing will get you to sleep either, possibly benzos (which i lack) but everything else under the sun failed. this substance leaves you quite drained. its effects are very speedy without any perceptual distortions at all, basically body + mind stimulation. didn't find it all that profound. one feels totally wiped for hours and hours. dosage looks to vary wildly person to person. 30mg is +3 for some 40mg for others, perhaps 25 for others?

Another note. the dangers on this substance seem apparent, others have reported crazy intensification of other substances for days afterwards, negative physiological reactions, fatigue, insomnia, etc. Since the potential for harm (without apparent benefits) is so high, this one should probably be left alone.

The mental stimulation is discombobulating in the way some psychedelics are, but lacking in the world-expanding quality of thought. Music was augmented, and it wasn't like meth or anything, but had more of a neutral feel to it. People who like this would prolly not seek it out for its mental qualities, though i couldn't forsee any great usage of this with its long and unpleasant "hangover"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
philosophicus, could you elaborate on the "long and unpleasant hangover". I'm still holding off on this substance. I actually haven't done any "research" at all in nearly 4 months.

This stuff has been available for a pretty long time now and still I've only seen/heard a handfull of vague reports. The only thing that's really holding me back is the lack of info on dosage.
 
On dosage I only have three things to offer. For me 30mg orally produced a solid +3 euphoric period for 3hours-ish, and then a +2 psychedelic amphetamine feeling for another 12+ hours. Hangover is a bad term, I guess I meant that being only just above baseline but unable to sleep (and kind of tired) is pretty annoying.

Another person I know took 45mg, he thought the initial period was more like a phenethylamine experience but was substantially more ehausted than i was for 12hours, and basically lay in bed all day. He has substantially more of a tolerance than I do in general.

I tried experimenting with it by smoking it in its HCL form (or i assume thats what it comes in). At 20mg a mild +2 was had with similar duration, perhaps 2 hours shorter. There wasn't the rushing of oral ingestion for whatever reason. Either way duration wasn't decreased which was the goal.

As for dose I think somewhere in the 20-30mg range would be a safe bet. I think someday when I have lots of time on my hands I will take a higher dose to see if it manifests psychedelic effects and the long period becomes more interesting. I kind of doubt it... which is why I am in no rush to do so.
 
Out of curiosity are there any other 3C-x chemicals that are known/suspected to be active?
 
3C-P isn't in PIHKAL, although the phenethylamine homologue of it is, P. About 3C-P Shulgin only says

The amphetamine homologue of proscaline, 3,5-dimethoxy-4-(n)-propoxy-amphetamine is an unexplored compound. Its synthesis could not be achieved in parallel to the description given for P. Rather, the propylation of syringaldehyde to give 3,5-dimethoxy-4-(n)-propoxybenzaldehyde, followed by coupling with nitroethane and the reduction of the formed nitrostyrene with lithium aluminum hydride would be the logical process. Following the reasoning given under E, the initials for this base would be 3C-P, and I would guess it would be active, and a psychedelic, in the 20 to 40 milligram range.
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head I think there is 3C-E (ethoxy) and 3C-BZ (benzyloxy) in PIHKAL however.
 
ToxicFerret said:
Out of curiosity are there any other 3C-x chemicals that are known/suspected to be active?
Click to expand...

Yeah, all the "3C"s are amphetamines, or alpha-methylphenethylamines. Amphetamines are alpha-methylated phenethylamines. There are many fantastic "3C" psychedelics.

DOB, DOC, DOET, DOI, DOM, DON, DOPR (DOP), DOT, DOT-2, DOT-7, FLEA, the FLY series, Ganesha, G-3, MDA, MDMA, MMDA, MMDA-2, some of the TOMs and TOETs sound ok. And I am sure I am missing a few. All are 3Cs.

Basically Shulgin started his psychedelic research by trying to make mescaline more powerful. He invented TMA. TMA and mescaline are the same except TMA has a methyl group (which has three carbons) at its alpha position, while mescaline has two. One could call TMA, "3C-mescaline." Or one could call TMA, "2C-TMA." Get it? The 2C, 3C refers to how many carbons are at the alpha position. The "2C" means two carbons at the alpha position, the "3C" means it has three carbons at the alpha.

Now as I was saying, Shulgin started his research with amphetamines (three carbons and the amine group) and made a bunch such as DOB, DOC, DOI, DOT, etc. Then later he decided to work on the phenethylamine "versions" of these materials. Amphetamines are phenethylamines with an extra carbon at the alpha...phenethylamines have a total of two carbons and then the amine.

So the "two carbon" version of DOB is 2C-B. The "two carbon" version of DOC is 2C-C. The "two carbon" version of DOI is 2C-I. The "three carbon" version of proscaline is 3C-P. The "three carbon" version of escaline is 3C-E. Etc, etc, etc.
 
Last edited:
As for the 2C-TMA thing. Yes, it would be "bad english" because the A in TMA is for amphetamine. Regardless, "2C" is what Shulgin came up with as a naming system for distinguishing phenethylamine "versions" of his DOx series from that series. 2C-TMA doesn't make any sense. But neither does 2C unless you know what it is refering to. 2C could mean anything. There is no scientific rules that demands they be called 2Cs. Shulgin made it up for his own convienence.

As for the rest, you sure solved a big issue for me. Thank you. So the 2C, 3C does not refer to how many carbons are at the alpha position, but rather how many carbons are on the amine chain (side chain), correct? Because I was looking at erowid's chem compare after I made the post and noticed that mescaline had only one carbon at the alpha, while TMA had two. Which really got me confused.

One should never assume anything, but you can see why I would. All the attention about the extra carbon at the alpha. One could think that 2C, 3C could refer to the carbons at the alpha, not the whole chain. But like I said, later I was looking at the 3D versions and suddenly what I thought didn't make much sense because I was seeing amphetamines with only 2 carbons at the alpha. Thank you for clearing up my misconception.

Before I said I was 99,9% right of the time as far as basic psychedelic questions. Now I will be 100% right all the time! ;)
 
iso240 said:
I'm pretty sure amphetamines are classified as a subset of phenethylamines. With that being the case, the DOx series chemicals are phenethylamines, as well as amphetamines.


The 2C naming system isn't something kids learn along with nomenclature in their organic classes, but that doesn't mean it's open to interpretation. "2C" could mean "anything" in the same way that the term "psychedelic" could mean "anything" to a four-year-old. There are specific criteria for which the term was derived-- once you step outside the bounds of those criteria, the term is no longer applicable... unless you'd call cocaine a "non-mind-manifesting psychedelic." Shulgin specifically defines the 2C series by stating, "If a drug has been initially developed (and initially named) as an amphetamine derivative (three carbon chain) then the two-carbon chain analogue will use the original name (or a symbolic part of it) with the term 2C ahead of it." That passage is from the entry for PIHKAL #72, escaline, in case you want confirmation on it.


Correct, according to the Shulgin passage quoted above.

I'm sure LKC or somebody will jump in here and correct me at any moment should I happen to be misunderstanding something as well... %)
Click to expand...

I am aware the amphetamines are phenethylamines. Hence why they are called alpha-methylphenethylamines. And I am aware of the rest. It was the fact that 2C, 3C refered to the amount of carbons on the whole amine chain, not just the alpha position that I was confused over.
 
In the interest of caution and warnings:

2 people took 40mg of 3c-p orally. It took a little bit to come on, perhaps an hour. Without a clock timing is only a guess. For perhaps 1-2hr a mild MDA-ish experience was had. At this time the feeling was neutral, no mental alterations of any significant intensity were had, though one had mild intestinal pains. After this period the GI disturbances got much worse for one, and the other developed a strange breath and throat constriction. This person described it as a tightness, barrier to deep breaths, an induced strange cough (not too often but unpleasant nonetheless), and general constriction of the breathing apparatus. That being said breathing and pulse were normal, but there was an experienced sense of contraction. Needless to say this was significantly worrying and the evening was spent taking it easy and monitoring the bodily state. The other person experienced no such effects but had quite unpleasant GI problems similar though less intense than 5-meo-dipt or 5-meo-amt. The worry and setting led to a feeling of uncomfortableness in this person, though it may have been the drug as well.

Phenomenological effects: At this dose, the whole character changed. THe empathic rushiness was absent (perhaps this was due to the setting distracting the bodies), but mild visuals were had. It felt like a speedy or twacky mild psychedelic feeling. No interesting emotive or cognitive enhancement was had. There is a slight analogy to AMT or DOB though it is a quite tenuous analogy. The speediness led to the desire to do something but not being content to do anything in particular, this was not pleasant.

The conclusions drawn are that in order to reach the proper intensity for a full psychedelic dose significant health risks would have to be endured. Repeating these experiments in my mind would be far to risky given the reactions of what few experiences we have, and without any cognitive or other benefits. Perhaps the only use for it would be in low doses as an enhancer for some other compound. In low doses it could add alertness, slight euphoria and empathy, but cross the threshold and you may find trouble. But again mixing compounds with this could prove dangerous if not lethal. This has demonstrated a danger about trail blazing in these regions. Comfort has been lost by the participants in pursuing such a path again, at least with psychedelic amphetamines. One thing I just remembered like DOB, 3c-p depleted blood sugar and energy to where one participant required food nearly every half hour. It seemed a fast metabolism was made startling fast, which led that participant to begin to wonder about his ability to use such compounds in the future.

In conclusion what little experience has been witnessed has led these folk to look with fear and caution upon this compound. What you do is your business but proceed with caution if at all.
 
One thing you guys forgot to include in your otherwise correct consensus definition are the nitpicky caveats that the carbon chain must be linear (otherwise things like beta-methyl whatever could also be considered 3C-class compounds), and that the amine must always be two carbons away from the aromatic ring (otherwise things like (substituted-phenyl)-3-propanamine could also be considered 3C-class compounds). Not that these two little things really matter, as molecules with these alternative arrangements must certainly be inactive.
 
I believe Im thinking of 2C-P arent I, that has been compared in intensity to 2C-E, just more potent?
 
Yeah you are. 2C-P is a homologue of 2C-E....2C-P has a three-carbon chain at the 4, 2C-E has a two-carbon chain at the 4. 2C-P is 4-propyl-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine and 2C-E is 4-ethyl-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine.

3C-P is an homologue of mescaline and proscaline...it is 4-propoxy-3,5-dimethoxy-alpha-methylphenethylamine.

A pic of all the molecules in question.
 

Attachments

  • 3C-P and friends.JPG
    3C-P and friends.JPG
    17.6 KB · Views: 224
Last edited:
Everyone I heard talk about 3CP said it was way too stimulating for way too long.
Click to expand...

I've heard people say the same for DOI and DOC but I really enjoy both of them so I'm willing to give it a go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone have anything to add to this thread? (I just edited it and cleaned it up, and it's rinky-dinky now...)

EVERYTHING BEFORE THIS POST IS CLEANED.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top