The euchemicals(non-toxic drugs) thread.

[SkyblueMolly]

2-methyl-2-butanol, the simplest euchemical.
Euchemicals are any non-toxic substance, research chemical, or drug with little to no side effects and a low to moderate abuse potential that can treat diseases, cure diseases, replace more harmful drugs, increase mood, increase memory, improve dexterity, increase strength, increase agility, improve sleep patterns, decrease anxiety, decrease aggressiveness, increase energy, improves problem solving skills, promotes critical thinking, expands imagination, increase health, increase attention span and/or increases abstract thinking. Some euchemicals are just non-toxic drugs which can be used recreationally. As long as a substance has little to no toxicity, it may be classified as a euchemical. Enhancement properties aren't present with all euchemicals, but all euchemicals have low toxicity. Many psychedelics such as the MDxx series, psilocybin, and the 2C-x series may be classified as euchemicals due to their low toxicity. Euchemicals are generally lifestyle enhancers.
Recreational euchemicals are often seen as safe drugs, but may be more accurately termed non-toxic drugs. These typically improve mood, peaceful mindsets and and sometimes a few areas of cognitive and/or psysical performance, but only while the drug is still in the blood at therapeutic concentrations. Recreational euchemicals may be cycled to improve safety and optimize results. Responsibility must be taken, as irresponsible use may cause side effects, tolerance, mild to moderately high dependence and some health problems. Some scientists recommend replacing drugs and alcohol(ethyl alcohol, booze) with euchemic drugs such as 2-methyl-2-butanol, prolintane, shrooms, and methylenedioxyamphetamines by the general population to avoid health problems. Euchemicals generally have a lower addiction potention when compared to toxic, non-euchemical drugs.
A euchemicist, or someone who studies euchemics and are interested in classification of euchemical could be seen as a combination of a psychonaut and an overachiever. Like creating cheat codes in real life combined with finding greater realizations. A hippie/limitless hybrid. What would such a hybrid look like?

+

=

?
This thread is to talk about these "lifestyle enhancing" substances to prevent other threads from getting too cloudy. %)

Euchemics is a relatively new term that includes a broad class of compounds, so confusion will often arise.
The main focus is if such a chemical is relatively non-toxic.

Euchemical sub-categories
Anxiolytic (anti anxiety)
Example: GHB, 2-methyl-2-butanol, Benzodiazepines, 2C-C(at sub-psychedelic doses)
Stimulants
Example: Prolintane, Caffeine, Methiopropamine, 2C-I(at sub-psychedelic doses)
Adrenergic stimulants. Increases physical performance and endurance during excercise.
Example: Propylhexedrine, Cyclopentamine, Dimethylamylamine, phenylpiracetam
Mood lifters
Example: MDA, MDMA, MDEA, IAP(Indanylaminopropane), St. John's wort, Rhodiola, Sunifiram, Panax ginseng
Concentration enhancers
Example: Piracetam, pramiracetam, coluracetam, 2C-D(at sub-psychedelic doses), phenylpiracetam
Memory and problem solving skills enhancers.
Example: 2C-D(at sub-psychedelic doses), phenylpiracetam, sunifiram, Phenylpiracetam hydrazide
Supplements.
Example: L-tyrosine, 5-HTP, B vitamins
Anti-oxidants.
Example: Quercetin, anthocyanins
Neuron growers (neurogenesis inducers).
Example: Psilocybin (at sub-psychedelic doses), S-18986, NSI-189
Eugeroics (wakefulness enhancers)
Examples: Fladrafinil(CRL-40,941), Flodafinil(a metabolite of fladrafinil), Hydrafinil(fluorenol).
Hallucinogens
Example: 2C-I, 2C-D, 2C-C, 2C-x series, psilocybin, lysergamides
Other (Indirect enhancement, benefits, medical benefits and/or ambiguous, undefined properties).
Baclofen(body temperature regulator), SCH-50911, ect.

/!\Warning: Be careful with euchemicals and cycle if necessary. If a certain euchemical isn't right for you, stop taking the euchemical and maybe try replenishing the neurochemicals.
Euchemicals must be respected (at least to a certain degree).
Euchemicals work best as part of a healthy lifestyle.
Note: Euchemicals aren't for regular use and must be cycled to optimize benefits and reduce the possibility of the generally few side effects euchemicals do have.
/!\Warning: Euchemicals may be harmful or fatal especially if misused. They may be safe to a certain extent, but are not ideal. As with any substance, the risks are not fully understood. It is up to the individual to weigh out the risks and the benefits. Stop taking a euchemical if they cause more risks than benefits in you. Every person reacts differently to a euchemical, so caution and responsibility is advised.

 

[perpetualdawn]

Very interesting... euchemicals... lots of overlap with nootropics I suspect, but I like this broader classification.

I've found extremely low-dose lysergemides (AL-LAD, LSD) to be really helpful in overcome mental blocks for learning some things that my brain was resisting.

Piracetam must fit into this.

 

[SkyblueMolly]

Very interesting... euchemicals... lots of overlap with nootropics I suspect, but I like this broader classification.

I've found extremely low-dose lysergemides (AL-LAD, LSD) to be really helpful in overcome mental blocks for learning some things that my brain was resisting.

Piracetam must fit into this.

Yup! Piracetam, and lysergemides both fit into the euchemical classification.

 

[weirdling]

Hate to be a Debbie Downer, but what is the point of this thread? To reiterate that psychedelics are in general not particularly toxic? Well yes, that's what we all hope to be the case.

MDXX, 2C-X certainly don't strike me as non-toxic. Lysergamides? Maybe some. I would certainly never want to repeat my high-dose LSZ experience - the feeling was like something out of the adrenochrome scene in Fear and Loathing minus the crazy hallucinations. "...You'll get strokes, aneurysms...you'll just wither up and die."

As someone who has invested a lot of time in learning about lifestyle enhancement, chemical and otherwise, the feeling I have is that all the chemicals we need are already in our bodies. Getting the most out of them is a question of discipline. And since most people, myself certainly included, simply lack the discipline required to tame the beast that is our mind, we reach for these chemicals in order to take shortcuts, embellish one part of our mind and suppress another. I don't deny that this approach can produce results. Nevertheless, I consider it to be the way of less return for greater investment and risk. The way for the weak-willed, if you will

It is my hope that one day I can drop the chemical crutches and walk towards the light without their support. Until then, I'll keep doing these drugs from time to time, hoping that one day some combo or another will kick my ass so hard as to propel me towards that higher plane of consciousness. A ridiculous notion, indeed, and very unlikely one too. Oh well.

 

[pupnik]

just say "eu"

 

[SkyblueMolly]

just say "eu"

"eu" means good and well.

 

[SkyblueMolly]

Hate to be a Debbie Downer, but what is the point of this thread? To reiterate that psychedelics are in general not particularly toxic? Well yes, that's what we all hope to be the case.

MDXX, 2C-X certainly don't strike me as non-toxic. Lysergamides? Maybe some. I would certainly never want to repeat my high-dose LSZ experience - the feeling was like something out of the adrenochrome scene in Fear and Loathing minus the crazy hallucinations. "...You'll get strokes, aneurysms...you'll just wither up and die."

As someone who has invested a lot of time in learning about lifestyle enhancement, chemical and otherwise, the feeling I have is that all the chemicals we need are already in our bodies. Getting the most out of them is a question of discipline. And since most people, myself certainly included, simply lack the discipline required to tame the beast that is our mind, we reach for these chemicals in order to take shortcuts, embellish one part of our mind and suppress another. I don't deny that this approach can produce results. Nevertheless, I consider it to be the way of less return for greater investment and risk. The way for the weak-willed, if you will

It is my hope that one day I can drop the chemical crutches and walk towards the light without their support. Until then, I'll keep doing these drugs from time to time, hoping that one day some combo or another will kick my ass so hard as to propel me towards that higher plane of consciousness. A ridiculous notion, indeed, and very unlikely one too. Oh well.

Your notion stems from the idea that we all have perfectly normal neurochemistry. This is not the case. Evolution and darwinism failed us all! Some people have an inbalance of neurochemicals and some parts of the brain are either overactive or underdeveloped. In PTSD, an area of the brain is overactive, while normal brains do not have this ordeal. In autism spectrum, the amygdala is underdeveloped. However, sometimes the neocortex is superdeveloped. In ADHD, the neocortex is underdeveloped. Assuming all brains are alike and perfectly healthy is naive. If there was a way to fix the brain to become normal neurochemically and heal it through euchemics, instead of "treating it" with wealth sucking modern pharmacology fueled by wealth instead of science, why not? Don't we all deserve the opportunity to break free from flawed darwinian evolution? Don't we all deserve to have the normal mechanisms to have this "control" you speak of in the first place? I for one refuse to suffer for all eternity. Once we have developmentally normal or even superior brains, health, and bodies, and near indestructability, then we'll be able to have the bridge to walk towards the light. With the bridge, we'll have the power within us. Without the bridge, you can't walk towards the light, as walking on air is both illogical and irrational and further supports flawed darwinian evolution. Genetics and evolution sucks! They are the shackles that enslave humanity into hatred, ignorance, bias, and an war-like anti-peace mentality. We can only "drop the chemical crutches" when we transcend our quote on quote "genetic limitations". You can't choose what to feel if you're body chemistry is scewed. Can a war vetaran with PTSD choose not to have flashbacks and choose to be happy if they're about to get assauted by a stupid gang group? No! They'll instantly enter battle mode and fight or flight will certainly take over. If you're one of the few people born normal, go ahead, discipline yourself. However, don't ask disadvanted people to do what a normal person can. We can only do so much. There's a wider range that's unattainable by simple will power(even iron willpower). Hence, euchemicals come into the picture.

 

[SkyblueMolly]

My experience with the euchemical called prolintane showed me that it's good to give yourself some value and stand up for yourself in a mature and courageous manner. It also speeds up thought processes and enhances cognition and organization skills. Prolintane is very nootropic-like. You may even clean up the house and want to get some homework (prolintane at higher doses like 40mg). However, since prolintane has a very long duration (7 hours to over 16 hours), it's best to only use it a couple of times a week or less and very early in the morning. It's good to sleep extra early the day before prolintane use so that you can wake up extra early. Taking prolintane around noon or later would result in disrupted sleep patterns for sure. I'm pretty new to prolintane though. Prolintane has no withdrawal symptoms.
Prolintane may deprive you of a good night's sleep if you take it at noon or later. 8(
Prolintane is cool, but must be respected. %)

 

[Solipsis]

Thanks for keeping other threads clean this way.

I kind of agree with some of weirdling's scepticism, I guess I used to appreciate wanking over the possibilities of enthousiastically applied (brain) chemistry a lot more some years ago before it got a little less fantastical.
A lot of this should be viewed a lot more in perspective, toxicity is not a black and white notion / consideration but a matter of concentrations and the chronic / acute nature of exposure in concentration values. Moreover, I think that a lot of meddling with drugs / supplements can have serious impact on your health indirectly even when you might tentatively call them non-toxic. Influence on your normal healthy brain functions can adversely lead to imbalances say ^^ indeed on your sleep or appetite.
Prolintane may not show blatant signs of toxicity, but I'd take a possible propensity to be depleted of mental or physical energy from such sustained effects seriously. For a stimulant user that might seem like a mundanity, but with idealized fantasies or promises of 'lifestyle enhancers' I would be concerned that people get a false sense of security.

I know from experience how nasty that can be, some time ago I was in a real-life and online scene where GHB, among other things, became popular and considered a wonder drug with mostly positive sides. Many people soon became addicted, and it turns out there are quite a few health implications such as all that sodium, or the dangers of withdrawing from it if you're not careful.

I don't know much at all about prolintane but I would probably be concerned about things like sleep deprivation effects before you'd see any withdrawal symptoms, so wouldnt they be quite obscured? It seems like it is still a stimulant and I would be amazed if you would not suffer from energy issues after copious prolintane use.

What makes methiopropamine so special that it ranks in a special way like this while meth is incredibly stigmatized?

(By the way weirdling: side-effects are not the same as toxicity, very toxic drugs may feel more than fine while non-toxic ones can sometimes give you temporary very unpleasant feelings. So how you felt on LSZ may not say much)

From what I know MDA is absolutely not non-toxic! Apparently some alpha-methyl dopamine analogues are formed that don't dick around.

Baclofen has interesting potential as a medicine, but why would it have use outside of that? Please elaborate.

Ugh, not such a very agreeable list...
A lot of compounds I see on it must be used in very specific ways to avoid problems (some of which very serious!), and I feel bad seeing something like benzo's on there, which makes it seem like something essentially good for you. I don't think they are good for a person at all!

Neurogenesis inducers, do we even know how to use them? What makes you think that random neurogenesis is healthy for a person? Surely it is not like "the more the merrier" ? So if you wanna consider that a special and effective trait of a drug you need to understand how to apply it. Perhaps you do have well circumscribed ideas about that. It seems fair to share them with us before the rest of the premise becomes acceptable.

 

[sekio]

The main focus is if such a chemical is relatively non-toxic.

But what does that really mean, man? (pass the doobie!)

Seriously though, if you think regular use of prolintane is healthy you maybe have not done as much research as you need to be. (also... regular use of 2-methyl-2-butanol? sounds like it would be just as physiologically upsetting as being an alcoholic.)

Also... methiopropamine? DMAA? Propylhexidrine? ... of all the stimulants to pick, why those? They're known for having pretty seriously heavy physiological side effects - worse central/peripheral effects ratio than meth...

 

[SkyblueMolly]

Thanks for keeping other threads clean this way.

I kind of agree with some of weirdling's scepticism, I guess I used to appreciate wanking over the possibilities of enthousiastically applied (brain) chemistry a lot more some years ago before it got a little less fantastical.
A lot of this should be viewed a lot more in perspective, toxicity is not a black and white notion / consideration but a matter of concentrations and the chronic / acute nature of exposure in concentration values. Moreover, I think that a lot of meddling with drugs / supplements can have serious impact on your health indirectly even when you might tentatively call them non-toxic. Influence on your normal healthy brain functions can adversely lead to imbalances say ^^ indeed on your sleep or appetite.
Prolintane may not show blatant signs of toxicity, but I'd take a possible propensity to be depleted of mental or physical energy from such sustained effects seriously. For a stimulant user that might seem like a mundanity, but with idealized fantasies or promises of 'lifestyle enhancers' I would be concerned that people get a false sense of security.

I know from experience how nasty that can be, some time ago I was in a real-life and online scene where GHB, among other things, became popular and considered a wonder drug with mostly positive sides. Many people soon became addicted, and it turns out there are quite a few health implications such as all that sodium, or the dangers of withdrawing from it if you're not careful.

I don't know much at all about prolintane but I would probably be concerned about things like sleep deprivation effects before you'd see any withdrawal symptoms, so wouldnt they be quite obscured? It seems like it is still a stimulant and I would be amazed if you would not suffer from energy issues after copious prolintane use.

What makes methiopropamine so special that it ranks in a special way like this while meth is incredibly stigmatized?

(By the way weirdling: side-effects are not the same as toxicity, very toxic drugs may feel more than fine while non-toxic ones can sometimes give you temporary very unpleasant feelings. So how you felt on LSZ may not say much)

From what I know MDA is absolutely not non-toxic! Apparently some alpha-methyl dopamine analogues are formed that don't dick around.

Baclofen has interesting potential as a medicine, but why would it have use outside of that? Please elaborate.

Ugh, not such a very agreeable list...
A lot of compounds I see on it must be used in very specific ways to avoid problems (some of which very serious!), and I feel bad seeing something like benzo's on there, which makes it seem like something essentially good for you. I don't think they are good for a person at all!

Neurogenesis inducers, do we even know how to use them? What makes you think that random neurogenesis is healthy for a person? Surely it is not like "the more the merrier" ? So if you wanna consider that a special and effective trait of a drug you need to understand how to apply it. Perhaps you do have well circumscribed ideas about that. It seems fair to share them with us before the rest of the premise becomes acceptable.

Interesting points, Solipsis! Though there are chemicals that are relatively non-toxic, there could be side effects when not-properly used. Some euchemicals indeed need to be cycled in order to avoid side effects and possible depletion of neurochemicals. This is why I generally cycle nootropic and non-toxic drugs alike. I also take supplements like L-tyrosine and plan to take 5-HTP(they replenish neurochemicals). I also eat eggs because they contain choline. I used to go fishing to catch fish eat plenty of fresh fish. I agree with the fact that just because something's non-toxic doesn't mean that it could be used daily. It also doesn't mean that they're all non-addictive. GHB and GBL while non-toxic can indeed become addictive if used over once a week. Even euchemicals have some side effects and we all must tread lightly. Maybe exploring courageously but cautiously. Neurogenesis means you grow more brain cells so you could possibly become more intelligent. Baclofen(10mg to 20mg) could be stacked with MDxx to avoid overheating. MDxx can only taken once a month or less often due to the large depletion of neurochemicals and time it takes to recover. I forgot to add the eugeroic fluorenol. Fluorenol is less toxic and less addictive than modafinil and is a euchemical. Fluorenol is a euchemical. I don't think Modafinil is a euchemical. It's just a random drug. I'm taking a break from prolintane. There's occasional fatigue here and there, but nothing serious. I'll need to sleep earlier and get that good ol' good night's sleep. Though benzodiazepines are relatively non-toxic, they can't be taken all the time. Benzodiazepines must be respected.

This euchemical thread would indeed keep other threads cleaner. The warning that would need to be mentioned though is be careful with euchemicals and cycle if necessary. If a certain euchemical isn't right for you, stop taking the euchemical and maybe try replenishing the neurochemicals.
Euchemicals must be respected (at least to a certain degree).
Euchemicals work best as part of a healthy lifestyle. %)

 

[Solipsis]

Intelligence is not about having more brain cells, if it can even be reduced to something I think efficient circuitry of the ones you do have may be one factor. And perhaps specialized regions well hinged together. The point is: it is more about quality over quantity as far as I know. Many times it has been demonstrated that there are also differences in brain size between certain parts of the population (or for example that Einstein had quite a small brain), that are correlated with nothing.

Can you elaborate on why modafinil does not mean your - dare I say vague - standards? Cause I find it a very useful and relatively harmless substance as far as my personal experience and what I read about it go. I never found modafinil addictive and I wouldn't know what is so toxic about it. Is fluorenol actually used in humans and understood as well as modafinil?
I think compounds like benzo's can suppress the immune system and are therefore not harmless even when used incidentally, but I might be mistaken - correct me if wrong.

Depletion of monoamines is probably not my number one concern when it comes to MDA. I know the subjectively experienced stronger hangover from MDA compared to MDMA cannot be interpreted as evidence for toxicity (I just said something to that effect earlier myself)... but I'd appreciate someone else like sekio chiming in on that: how does one interpret what we know about harmful effects of say yearly MDA use?

Actually the once-a-month or less rule for MDxx is not even adequate. They recommend that to people so that hopefully that advice is followed, while it seems it takes more like 4-6+ months to recover... I used to be part of government funded information programs but they wouldn't say that to party-goers because of concern that people would just find it unrealistic and disregard the whole thing.
That same group did a study which found that the effect of 5-HTP is pretty negligible for MDMA users. But yes in theory it sounded rather wonderful.

About the latter part of your post: just consider each drug on its own, not as part of an euchemical category. It might seem like a nice idea for you but pigeonholing drugs into a class to which a set of rules apply is in this case not only meaningless and based on far too weak commonalities, it results in the risk that people grow too lazy to actually treat each drug uniquely and appropriately.
And HR-wise it is in pretty bad taste to proclaim a bunch of compounds essentially non-toxic while they are blatantly not. Please edit your OP to make it clear that you claim these things with no authority, that you are merely expressing your opinion there. Or otherwise, start placing some reference links to research literature.

And finally: this is not really a PD thread. I can't extend to it the same rules applied to the few Nootropics threads we have. So here it goes from PD >> HL.

 

[SkyblueMolly]

Eicosapentaenoic acid is a nutrient. It's an Omega 3 fatty acid found in fish.

The image below shows a molecule of phenylpiracetam hydrazide, a new euchemical.

 

[SkyblueMolly]

But what does that really mean, man? (pass the doobie!)

Seriously though, if you think regular use of prolintane is healthy you maybe have not done as much research as you need to be. (also... regular use of 2-methyl-2-butanol? sounds like it would be just as physiologically upsetting as being an alcoholic.)

Also... methiopropamine? DMAA? Propylhexidrine? ... of all the stimulants to pick, why those? They're known for having pretty seriously heavy physiological side effects - worse central/peripheral effects ratio than meth...

I forgot to mention that even euchemicals aren't for regular use. Euchemicals need to be cycled. Even nootropics themselves need to be cycled. Then again, I tend to cycle every substance so I only use them sometimes. If I had piracetam, I would even cycle the piracetam. Euchemicals need to be cycled to avoid tolerance and the few side effects that euchemicals do have. Peripheral effects aren't indicative of toxicity. I've used DMAA in the past mostly as a pre-workout. I've lost interest in it though as the whole gym thing gets tiring after a while. Methiopropamine and Propylhexedrine has better safety profiles than methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is more dangerous than crack and heroin. Amphetamine itself barely qualifies as a quasieuchemical(semi-euchemical, half euchemical). Sure, amphetamine is comparatively much safer than crack and heroin, but it's still pretty dangerous to a certain degree. Basically euchemicals have a lower abuse potential and low toxicity, though one must still be cautious. Maybe isopropylamphetamine would have less peripheral effects.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

MDA is definitely a neurotoxin

 

[SkyblueMolly]

MDA is definitely a neurotoxin

That assumption is based on the idea that 3,4-dihydroxyamphetamine is neurotoxic when, infact, it isn't neurotoxic. It's also based on flawed animal studies. The only evidence of neurotoxicity is speculation from chronic administration of MDA and serotonin metabolites from said chronic administration. Who would ever use MDA and MDxx more than once a month? The benefits far outweigh the speculative risks. Just stay cool and put on the AC.

 

[flyhighk]

Definitely doesn't belong here. Maybe OD or NsPD

Moving to Other Drugs

 

[sekio]

Methiopropamine and Propylhexedrine has better safety profiles than methamphetamine.

... no?

 

[St3ve]

That assumption is based on the idea that 3,4-dihydroxyamphetamine is neurotoxic when, infact, it isn't neurotoxic. It's also based on flawed animal studies. The only evidence of neurotoxicity is speculation from chronic administration of MDA and serotonin metabolites from said chronic administration. Who would ever use MDA and MDxx more than once a month? The benefits far outweigh the speculative risks. Just stay cool and put on the AC.

"Euchemicals are any non-toxic substance, research chemical, or drug with little to no side effects and a low to moderate abuse potential..."

Plenty of people take MDxx's more than once a month... While there's no conclusive evidence as to the neurotoxicity (or lack there of) in humans, there are some studies that suggest lasting deficits in memory as well as increased prevalence of various mood disorders in heavy users. Yes these studies can be criticized for not adequately controlling against other drug use, but then again most MDxx users also use other drugs. And let's not forget that their affinity for 5HT2B receptor makes them potential cardiotoxins as well...

Hyperthermia, increased heart rate and blood pressure, dehydration, bruxism (can lead dental damage) doesn't classify as "little to no side effects", IMO.

While not addictive on paper and not the worst in that regard, MDxx are definitely abusable and frequently are, a brief visit in the MDMA & Empathogenic drugs forum here will confirm that...

Under your category of "Mood lifters" I'd be more inclined to put things like St John's Wort or Rhodiola rosea than MDA and MDMA. Albeit very subtle when compared to MDxx they work as mood improvers and are MUCH safer in terms of long term use... SJW is known for interacting with a lot of other drugs and increasing CYP enzymes though so care should be taken when mixing that with other drugs...

 

[SkyblueMolly]

"Euchemicals are any non-toxic substance, research chemical, or drug with little to no side effects and a low to moderate abuse potential..."

Plenty of people take MDxx's more than once a month... While there's no conclusive evidence as to the neurotoxicity (or lack there of) in humans, there are some studies that suggest lasting deficits in memory as well as increased prevalence of various mood disorders in heavy users. Yes these studies can be criticized for not adequately controlling against other drug use, but then again most MDxx users also use other drugs. And let's not forget that their affinity for 5HT2B receptor makes them potential cardiotoxins as well...

Hyperthermia, increased heart rate and blood pressure, dehydration, bruxism (can lead dental damage) doesn't classify as "little to no side effects", IMO.

While not addictive on paper and not the worst in that regard, MDxx are definitely abusable and frequently are, a brief visit in the MDMA & Empathogenic drugs forum here will confirm that...

Under your category of "Mood lifters" I'd be more inclined to put things like St John's Wort or Rhodiola rosea than MDA and MDMA. Albeit very subtle when compared to MDxx they work as mood improvers and are MUCH safer in terms of long term use... SJW is known for interacting with a lot of other drugs and increasing CYP enzymes though so care should be taken when mixing that with other drugs...

Thanks for the suggestions. Also, I didn't know that the MDxx hyperthermia was caused by 5HT2B. I thought it was just constant dancing and lack of AC(air conditioning). Indanylaminopropane is much milder though. While euchemicals may not be physically addictive, some euchemicals may get psychologically addictive(meaning the perceived need to take it frequently) if care is not taken (as in the case of GHB and MDMA). Interestingly, the hyperthermia of MDxx is eliminated when stacked with 10mg to 20mg of baclofen. A custom made mouth guard would solve the bruxism and teeth grinding. Since there still aren't many correctly structured studies on MDxx, the word of warning is tread with extreme caution. MDxx may be harmful or fatal. I'll add St. John's wort and others. What other safe mood lifters can be added to the list? Contributions and explanations are always appreciated. It makes for a clearer euchemical thread. Euchemicals may be harmful or fatal. They may be somewhat safe, but are not ideal. At the end of the day, it is up to the individual to weigh out the risks and the benefits.