The Old and Overgrown DOC thread (fixed)

[21p]

Generally speaking, it is an amphetamine! That was my point throughout the entire flamefest. I'm still saying you need to take the chemical and observe others on it before you come to analytic conclusions on its effects. Every single person SWIM has given DOC to reports amphetamine--(like dexedrine) after effects when the main part of the experience is gone. If everyone is telling SWIM they feel sped or rowled up, SWIM is going to listen and agree. Of course now I'm gonna cut and paste like so many have done before:

(±)-alpha-Methylbenzeneethanamine- adderall
1-(4-chloro-2,5-dimethoxy phenyl)propane-2-amine HCL-DOC
9,10-Didehydro-N,N-diethyl-6-methylergoline-8ß-carboxamid- LSD
(5a,6a)-7,8-didehydro-4,5-epoxy-17-methylmorphinan-3,6-diol- Morphine

You decide which one is more similar to the other... I don't think I really need to say anything here, except that I never compared morphine to LSD or LSD to amphetamine. You were putting words in my mouth in this case. Let ME tell YOU what my logic is next time, instead of filling in all the blanks for me ahead of the impending conversation.

I'm telling you this drug is stimulating, will keep you awake much longer than is normal (almost without exception), and make you hallucinate. Every report coming back to SWIM emphasizes the STIMULANT/hallucinogenic nature of the drug. People will probably not put alot of faith in a guy behind a keyboard when compared to what is and will become common street knowledge. This shit speeds you up, trips you out, and is named-2,5-DIMETHOXY-4-CHLOROAMPHETAMINE. So SWIM and everyone he knows will continue to refer to is a hallucinogenic amphetamine, because that is its chemical name. If you want to change the chemicals name to something other than what it's being sold as, please take it up with the distributor. Sooo...... what were you saying?

 

[21p]

Finally, a good answer... Hazah, sir, hazah!

Anyway, I think the main point here is that; no, it shouldn't cause "Amphetamine Psychosis"; this is because it works mostly on different receptors in the brain. Does that, or the fact that people have taken large amounts without incident mean that this is a safe substance? No, not at all, for all anyone knows this stuff could be melting holes in your brain every time you take it.

But again, I have to question you here for reasons of amiguity. People just don't know exactly what the effects of exended use are. I argue that it hits some of the same receptors--- SWIM felt similar adrenaline rushes (adderall) and remained stimulated throughout the trip. Therefore, it can be compared to those other drugs.Chemicals change when ingested, and you guys just don't have the expertise or equipment to determine those changes! every report SWIM gets compares it to LSD and amphetamine, without prompting!

So, a recap here- I'm saying you people just don't know! Edited knowledge of chemistry will only take you so far. The discussion of DOC's effects should be limited to those that have consumed it!

 

[blab]

Everytime SWIM has given the RC to other people (5/5), they have reported insomnia and loss of appetite. Energy levels peaked at 4-5 hours and receded slowly from there.

Hmmmmmmmmm. A sample size of 5! Let's make all our deductions from the 5 people I gave 2 mgs of DOC to! Good scientific study. lol! Since you know everything then tell me what the half life of DOC is. well.........waiting. Come on......Even a self appointed genious like you should be able know this. After all you observed(while intoxicated?) 5 people who had presumably taken DOC.

You would be dangerous if you knew elementary chemistry. But then again you don't need to since you scored so high on your SAT. lol!

 

[Morninggloryseed]

If it is an amphetamine and has stimulating effects--- it probably is an amphetamine...Generally speaking, it is an amphetamine!...I never compared morphine to LSD or LSD to amphetamine. You were putting words in my mouth in this case.

I put no words in your mouth.

I never claimed you compared LSD and morphine to amphetamine. However, you have said at many points that the structure of DOC 'contains amphetamine' in its structure and exibits 'amphetamine-like' effects because of that. LSD and morphine also contain amphetamine in their structures and both can cause stimulation.

DOC is not an amphetamine, but rather it is a 4-halo-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine. And I guess you realize that now as you are stating that DOC is Generally speaking' an amphetamine.

So let me ask you what constitutes an amphetamine? Fenfluramine, DOC, LSD, ritalin, and morphine all contain the amphetamine backbone in their structure. However, only ritalin is a stimulant. Chemically, it is much further away from simple alpha-methylphenethylamine compared to DOC.

Methylphenidate=methyl-alpha-phenyl-2-piperidineacetate

DOC=2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine

Yet, ritalin is a stimulant like cocaine and dexedrine. DOC is not.

So with the stimulant ritalin being further away from dexedrine as compared to the psychedelic DOC...which one is still the amphetamine? Which one is more 'amphetamine-like.' And finally, what constitutes an amphetamine? Is your definition of an amphetamine related strictly to number of substitutions, the drug's psychopharmacology, or do you just randomly choose based on convenience?

Since you maintain that DOC is an amphetamine, but not LSD, then what about ritalin? Where between the structure of LSD and ritalin does a chemical lose its amphetamine status in your mind?

PS, I think this is great discussion?

 

[seuss1973]

DOC=2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine

Whoops, sorry to nitpick bro, but that should be chloro not ethyl.

But speaking of DOET, it seems odd to me that it doesn't do much in the way of visuals, considering how visually stunning 2CE is. It still sounds pretty interesting though, and it's another one I wouldn't mind trying if it came around.

 

[Morninggloryseed]

Whoops, sorry to nitpick bro, but that should be chloro not ethyl.

But speaking of DOET, it seems odd to me that it doesn't do much in the way of visuals, considering how visually stunning 2CE is. It still sounds pretty interesting though, and it's another one I wouldn't mind trying if it came around.

Woops, yeah was writing a DOET entry for wikipedia and I guess it was on my mind. DOET can be quite visual when you push beyond 10mg according to a few reports I know of. A really neat report on human pharmacology of DOET was published from the J. Hopkins institute in 1968 I believe. I got it somewhere on PDF, and will dig it up.

 

[21p]

When a chemical has stimulating properties, I consider it to be at least, in part, a stimulant. I never said that this drug was exclusively a stimulant. I said it wss an amphetamine with some amphetamine like qualities. Which it is- b/c it's an amphetamine!

5 experiences is equal the sum of your posts, blab, soooo... it's much better than anything you've contributed to the discussion.. I can make a reasonable assumption that some effects of this drug are stimulatory. Where do I get this crazy notion? Let me give you the dictionary.com definition of stimulant. I told you I have no background in chemistry, so for me and most other people, this is what a stimulant is.....

# An agent, especially a chemical agent such as caffeine, that temporarily arouses or accelerates physiological or organic activity.
# A stimulus or an incentive: “An age of political excitement is usually a stimulant to literature” (Will Durant).
# A food or drink, especially an alcoholic drink, believed to have a stimulating effect.

So, according to dictionary,com, stimulant can mean many different things. I can call it a hallucinogenic stimulant and be perfectly correct about it! Likewise, I can call it a hallucinogenic amphetamine, or a hallucinogen or a stimulating amphetamine.... Most of you disagree with this, but obviously the definition can be used properly in many ways. It has to fit into an extremely specific category to be real, or it just doesn't make sense, ehh? It's not this, it's that.... Well guys, IT COULD BE BOTH!!!

But seriously...

I think it's hilarious to watch a bunch of burnouts get flaming mad about the exact definition of this or that and start coughing up basic chemistry (If I can undsrstand it without any training, it's basic). I thought it would be funny to shoot a few jabs, especially after the paste and post king entered the conversation to shut me down with somebody elses research. I doubt he could balance an equation. Of course, I knew you all were gonna do the "Berkeley, yeah right.... LSAT blah blah." I threw it in there to expose the obvious sense of intellectual insecurity that runs through RC forums. It's like a pissing contest for chemistry dropouts in here most of the time. The people with 8000+ posts just spend their days attempting to correct other people they want to feel superior to, but can't for whatever reason. Call it a necessary evil, but it's really pretty pathetic. (And yes, I do think it's comical) If you spit credentials in a room full of people obsessed with their intellect, the place goes crazy with anger. "No one can be smarter than me, no one. I am gonna make this guy look stupid." The funny thing is, I already know what you guys are gonna do after reading this, because it's the same thing that happens weekly on these message boards... I just put my sunglasses on and relax.....%)



So, I'll concede to this statement,
Anyway, yes it is an amphetamine, a substituted amphetamine to be precise, so is every thing else in PIHKAL. This doesn't make it a stimulant. The term "amphetamine psychosis" is probably a somewhat poorly chosen name, "stimulant psychosis" would probably be more accurate.

Agreed. The bottom line is this- the word stimulant can mean many things, as well as the word amphetamine. Most of you misunderstood my use of the words because you have narrowed your definitions to accomodate drug terminology. I still don't think any of you armchair chemists really understand the actions of this drug. because you don't have access to equipment/real scientists/studies. I never claimed to have conducted a scientific study on the effects of DOC from a sample size of 5 people, just that with the limited knowledge of this drug, subjective first hand experience with 5 is more accurate than 1 fat ass on a bean bag talking above his own head.

 

[fastandbulbous]

So, a recap here- I'm saying you people just don't know! Edited knowledge of chemistry will only take you so far. The discussion of DOC's effects should be limited to those that have consumed it!

I told you I have no background in chemistry, so for me and most other people, this is what a stimulant is.....

I think it's hilarious to watch a bunch of burnouts get flaming mad about the exact definition of this or that and start coughing up basic chemistry

Of course, I knew you all were gonna do the "Berkeley, yeah right.... LSAT blah blah." I threw it in there to expose the obvious sense of intellectual insecurity that runs through RC forums. It's like a pissing contest for chemistry dropouts in here most of the time.

Call it a necessary evil, but it's really pretty pathetic. (And yes, I do think it's comical) If you spit credentials in a room full of people obsessed with their intellect, the place goes crazy with anger. "No one can be smarter than me, no one. I am gonna make this guy look stupid." The funny thing is, I already know what you guys are gonna do after reading this, because it's the same thing that happens weekly on these message boards... I just put my sunglasses on and relax.....

Well, I've been sitting reading this and have a few comments:

The first quote is utter bollocks. 'Only people who have taken the drug should discuss it'. That smacks of elitist crap about 'we select few'. There are plenty of people involved in research with 5HT2a agonists that haven't taken the drugs they write papers on, but according to you that would disqualify their papers.
The second quote backs up the elitist tone of the first. Maybe I could say if you don't understand pharmacology you shouldn't talk about the drug, but I will not as it would also be bollocks.

The third and fourth quotes give the impression that you're just a wind up merchant with an inflated sense of their own superiority (quoting academic backgropund doesn't really impress me either, it's the quality of the discussion that counts for the most part with these poorly researched compounds)

The fifth quote - you're doing exactly what you accuse other people here of doing - the put down/intellectual snobbery, but at least most of the people here don't feel the urge to end it with a smug comment about sitting back and putting sunglasses on - that if anything shows a level of arrogance & (supposed) superiority that generally goes with inflated egos

I saved this one 'till last

Anyway, yes it is an amphetamine, a substituted amphetamine to be precise, so is every thing else in PIHKAL. This doesn't make it a stimulant. The term "amphetamine psychosis" is probably a somewhat poorly chosen name, "stimulant psychosis" would probably be more accurate.

Everything is PIHKAL isn't an amphetamine, everything is a substituted phenethylamine (amphetamine being a contraction of alpha-methylphenethylamine). Stimulant psychosis is also incorrect - a stimulant psychosis is characterized by excessive stimulation of the D2 receptor - dopamine being the important neurotransmitter in stimulant related psychosis - one that is untouched by the psychedelic amphetamines (there may be a dopamine release as a secondary,'cascaded' effect, but it is not a primary effect of psychedelic amphetamines). Amphetamine & related psychosis is indeistinguishable from a paranoid psychosis of natural origin and can only de diagnosed in a controlled enviroment where access to stimulants is strictly controlled. This is different to the main elements of hallucinogen induced psychiatric conditions, which tend to have elements of megalomania that is absent from paranoid schizophrenia.


So, in closing - get over yourself; you've made quite a few mistakes yourself as outlined in the above quotes, so the sitting back with sunglasses on is the action of someone who does not realize the depth of their own ignorance in these matters - otherwise you'd have offered your opinions without the need to involve egos & come across as someone who knows more/better than anyone else here.

PS as a final comment, in case you return to the tired old bit about chemistry dropouts, your academic qualifucations etc., I don't normally include this as it means very little most of the time, but I've done postgrad work in SAR (structure activity relationship - in my case it was with anorectic compounds) pharmacology, so that hardly qualifies for your deriding comments. Also, with your comments about taking work from other people, in case you weren't aware - that's how theories are backed up in science, by citing references back to work by others (the same way legal matters are based upon precedents - shouldn't be that difficult a concept to understand). Without referring back to work by others, whatever you say is just conjecture and highly subjective at that - that's not science, that's storytelling

Basically, if all you want to do is be a wind up merchant, you'll be as welcome here as a turd in a swimming pool

I never claimed to have conducted a scientific study on the effects of DOC from a sample size of 5 people, just that with the limited knowledge of this drug, subjective first hand experience with 5 is more accurate than 1 fat ass on a bean bag talking above his own head.

And you're not talking above your head? If so, I wouldn't have felt that I had to go through and point out your mistakes. Learn a bit of humility and you'll be a better human being for it.

BTW I've made some glorious mistakes in the past, but I'm not so arrogant as to try and bluff my way out or just plain deny that I'm wrong. We await seeing who you are in this manner...

 

[B9]

^Well said my friend, lets hope that's the end of the bullshit from intelligent genius fuck up guy.
zophen.

 

[Jamshyd]

Someone, I think it was Glog, mentioned an observation that DOC seems to make people manic. I am starting to see that myself in this thread, most recent example being 21p.

 

[bluedolphin]

Let's just say my "sample group" is a bit larger than 21p's

Seems like about 1/5 experience nausea to some degree. The chance of nausea increases depending on how much is eaten. About 1/10 puke early on in the come-up stage, and then typically report feeling totally fine throughout the rest of the trip.

Also seems that some people a stimulated by this chemical more than others. Friends have tested this at very low doses (like 0.25mg and 0.5mg) to see if such a low dose would remove the psychedelic effects while maintaining the neuro-stimulant effects.

Apparently you need to take quite a small dose of DOC to avoid any psychedelic effects at all. Something like 0.3mg may give you a wee bit more physical energy than usual, but it's primary effects seem to be mental.

My friend concluded that such small doses of DOC were superior to dex-amphetamine for creative work, and that he was certainly not "kept up late" on a tiny dose like this. Although, he did report minor psychedelic effects, even visually.

......

So, even though different people experience different degrees of stimulation on DOC -- ranging from not feeling "stimulated" like an amphetamine at all (actually feeling somewhat of a calming effect), to feeling moderately stimulated and unable to sleep for about 24 hours after dosing.

To me, the "stimulation" feels like a mix between a very mild and clean amphetamine and some very clean LSD.

......

DOC may have mild amphetamine-like properties, but it is MUCH more a psychedelic. "Dyed in the wool psychedelic" as the Shulgin group said

So, 21p, don't be an idiot and give this chemical to your friends claiming it's an amphetamine. And listen to morninggloryseed... you might learn something.

 

[bluedolphin]

Someone, I think it was Glog, mentioned an observation that DOC seems to make people manic.

Not in my observations. The most "stimulated/(manic??)" effect I've witnessed was one particular dude who simply felt like walking around and talking to random people during his trip. The rest of our group wondered if he was having some kind of manic reaction at first (since we were all chillin, playing instruments and hanging out in a pretty relaxed state.... doses 3mg to 4mg that night), but when we asked him if he was allright and chillin he assured us that he was most definitely more than allright, and having a blast.

He just happened to feel extra-social on this chemical. I believe he took it on two other occasions and both times was a bit more introspective and less out-going.

On the occasion that he took DOC and then walked around a lot socializing, he appeared very comfortable in his state, and I don't even think most people realized he was tripping. Yet he assured us that he most certainly was

.........

Yet, I would still suggest getting started with this chemical early in the day, unless you don't care about maintaining a typical sleep schedule. The "trip" can last up to 18 hours. However I find the psychedelic and visual effects outlive any noticeable stimulation. And, during this latter stage of the trip, it is possible for some people to fall asleep without much difficulty.

The only thing about DOC that ever reminded me of "amphetamine" was the increaed clarity, accuracy, and speed of which I could play guitar.

In other words, I find it to be much more of a neuro-stimulant than a physical stimulant.

 

[Jamshyd]

Not in my observations. The most "stimulated/(manic??)" effect I've witnessed was one particular dude who simply felt like walking around and talking to random people during his trip.

Nope, by "manic" I meant just that; a sort of arrogant euphoria frequently masking ignorance and stupidity. 21p's posts are a big waste of everyone's time bieng such. Had you read any of my posts in the past 3 pages, you may have noticed that they all argue against the assumption that DOC is like Amphetamine simply because it has the word "amphetamine" in its chemical name.

 

[bluedolphin]

^^
Oh yeah, I wasn't debating you. Just taking the opportunity to toss in some actual DOC information

 

[fastandbulbous]

Nope, by "manic" I meant just that; a sort of arrogant euphoria frequently masking ignorance and stupidity. 21p's posts are a big waste of everyone's time bieng such.

So just about everyone is in agreement! DOC is a big 'whoosh ya fucker' psychedelic that happens to make people more sociable for the most part?

Yes?

Good!

 

[DexterMeth]

^I wouldnt agree with that.

 

[DexterMeth]

"I'm in law school right now, maybe I'll be lucky enough to prosecute your washed up druggy ass one day..."

That's nice.

lmfao. why is that cunt even here?

 

[fastandbulbous]

^I wouldnt agree with that.

Which bit & why?

 

[B9]

To me manic is when a persons thought trains take a one dimensional perspective and nothing will sway their point of view, no matter how bizarre/dangerous the situation becomes. It doesn't have to be allied with physical activity(though personally my mania invariably is) but the person will usually become agitated/aggressive if their perspective is not agreed with, or often even it is.

zophen(fucking maniac steer clear)

 

[hugo24]

Actually a very interesting discussion,could even make up something for Advanced Drug Discussion.

The Nichols 1994 JMC paper about the TFM analogs showed for the first time that compared to its amphetamins,the 2C's have less intrinsic activity at the 5-HT2a receptor (stimulating inositol monophosphate accumulation at the receptor,and btw not on the 5-HT2c).Thats a fact,probably accounting for the stronger psychedelic nature of the substituted amphetamines.Plus,we don't know exactly to what degree these compounds are agonists resp partial agonists resp. antagonists,it surely explains all the different finesses observed in humans and that no compound is like the other.

Maybe strong stimulation of the 5-HT2a receptor is also responsible for insomnia?But why do many get sleepy in the middle of the trip?These sleepless aftermaths are a)always well after the peak,in fact one is practically down psychedelically b) are the hallmarks of the psychedelic amphetamines/3C indoles (the 2C's,when its over its over and sleep comes immediately and uncompromised).

DOM is the big classic notorious in that regard,DOC also confirmed now,to a lesser degree DOB,DOI and also confirmed personally with TMA.Now why is this so?I havent seen papers about binding characteristics on other receptors,only sparse infos on Monoamine release/inhibition.Surely theres something we don't know exactly at the moment,it could also be one of the several trickle down effects.

A clue might come from stereochemistry,if its the classical amphetamine stimulation,the S enantiomer would be the mainly responsible compound.But then,I couldn't sleep either on R-(-)-DOM! PIHKAL data suggests that even the S Enantiomer of DOB and DOI are somewhat psychedelic,only needing a higher dose.

So it seems that a) selectivity is only partial and b) to some degree this could be also valid to other effects (part. DA,NA) c) there are as of yet unknown other targets/pathways involved and d) WE HAVE OVERLOOKED SOMETHING