Vendors, suppliers and Bluelight

[atara]

- ... the business of pharma-companies that have to drop whole classes of compounds because they were spoiled by ignorant folks beforehand. Example: The AAIs, or better known to the ignorant crowd as JWH-018 & Co. Do you have any idea how much money went down the drain due to this???

I think the way the napthoylalkylindole class went down was way better than the alternative. Had they not shown up on the RC scene, the issues associated with them might not have arisen until long after the clinical trial phase was over and the pills had hit the market. Then you would have had the DEA maligning medical marijuana while endorsing JWH-018 as "approved by science" (for real, they actually did this). Not long after, the teenage crowd would have caught on, started smoking the pills, and ended up with at least as many dead kids as before, while the old folks unlucky enough to have been prescribed JWH-018 as an adjunct to chemotherapy would have started showing up in the emergency room with liver failure. The end result would probably have been a product recall and losses of tens of millions or more for the companies involved.

Better to nip that one in the bud.

The only other RC class that was broadly stolen from pharmaceutical companies were the triple reuptake inhibitors, like diclofensine and naphyrone. Those were just big fat failures as RCs, and they would never have made it anyway thanks to abuse liability.

... the research of serious scientists who have a hard time getting licenses to work with these substances, as soon as they get prohibited. This directly equals hampering important research, which could have led to new pharmaceuticals or therapies. Example: Look at the advance that LSD-based psychotherapy has done since its prohibition; almost nil!

The whole clandestine drug scene does this, not just the RC market. DOM and other major DOx were banned before the dawn of the Internet.

 

[Sturnam]

- ... the business of pharma-companies that have to drop whole classes of compounds because they were spoiled by ignorant folks beforehand. Example: The AAIs, or better known to the ignorant crowd as JWH-018 & Co. Do you have any idea how much money went down the drain due to this???

Now I'm curious. Was there lots of pharmaceutical development with the JWH's in Europe? Were the indications the same as medical marijuana? I'm around a JWH in my professional life, and it hasn't come under any fire yet, although I do live in the USA. I really hope that they don't, or at least the ones we work with aren't made illegal, because they have some really promising results for diseases that lack safe, effective treatments.

 

[atara]

Now I'm curious. Was there lots of pharmaceutical development with the JWH's in Europe? Were the indications the same as medical marijuana? I'm around a JWH in my professional life, and it hasn't come under any fire yet, although I do live in the USA. I really hope that they don't, or at least the ones we work with aren't made illegal, because they have some really really promising results for treating cancer.

JWH compounds are not solely napthoylalkylindoles. For example, JWH-133 is a promising treatment for alzheimers that is neither an analog of the NAIs nor a likely candidate to be a recreational drug.

 

[MurphyClox]

I think the way the napthoylalkylindole class went down was way better than the alternative. Had they not shown up on the RC scene, the issues associated with them might not have arisen until long after the clinical trial phase was over and the pills had hit the market.

This is complete nonsense for several reasons. First, there are of course numerous AAIs without the suspect naphthoyl-moiety. They could have switched to these derivatives with ease. Second, pharma companies are required to put every substance that they intend to commercialize under scrupulous examination. This usually includes assays for carcinogenic and teratogenic activity, too.
The RC-market simply took the AAI that was most easily available instead of critically reviewing what else might be available. Only after the first naphthoyl-AAIs were prohibited, they switched to other derivatives.

... the research of serious scientists who have a hard time getting licenses to work with these substances, as soon as they get prohibited. This directly equals hampering important research, which could have led to new pharmaceuticals or therapies. Example: Look at the advance that LSD-based psychotherapy has done since its prohibition; almost nil!

The whole clandestine drug scene does this, not just the RC market. DOM and other major DOx were banned before the dawn of the Internet.

Of course does the clandestine scene this as well, but their contribution to the never-ending cycle of prohibition and new inventions is much slower. The worldwide availability of psychoactives via the internet accelerate their prohibition at a previously unknown pace.

JWH compounds are not solely napthoylalkylindoles. For example, JWH-133 is a promising treatment for alzheimers that is neither an analog of the NAIs nor a likely candidate to be a recreational drug.

So what? JWH-133 is obviously derived from THC, which is already included in the analogue laws. If such a derivative would ever hit the legal market, it will directly go to one of the schedule lists due the obvious relationship to Schedule 1-compounds.

And btw, the JWH-designation is completely meaningless in this context. It's simply a code derived from Huffman's working group. Neither did his group invent all compounds that have now a JHW-code, nor is the list homogeneous with respect to the structures (at least 3 different basic skeletons), nor have all known AAIs a JWH-code.

Now I'm curious. Was there lots of pharmaceutical development with the JWH's in Europe?

There was at least one major pharma company in Europe who researched the AAIs. This information came from personal communication and I won't comment any further on this.
How good does the AAI you are working with (whichever this may be; no need to name it) fit the US analogue law? I would guess that for some lawyers a N-something-indole-3-acyl-something with significant CB1/2-activity s already enough to sue anybody who owns it (...fits both substantial structural and pharmacological similarity). I admit though, law is anything but my field. I really hope for you that your 'tools' remain perfectly legal until all research is published.


- Murphy

 

[MurphyClox]

And please let me point out:
I do not demand the so-called 'elitism' per se. I rather demand thoughtful and cautious behaviour of the users. If this is not possible, then I call for elitism, i.e. confidentiality and restricted access to resp. forums.

- Murphy

 

[rickolasnice]

Are you sure that somebody didn't notice the chemical on a vendor website before coming here and asking about it?

That seems alot more likely.

 

[atara]

This is complete nonsense for several reasons. First, there are of course numerous AAIs without the suspect naphthoyl-moiety. They could have switched to these derivatives with ease. Second, pharma companies are required to put every substance that they intend to commercialize under scrupulous examination. This usually includes assays for carcinogenic and teratogenic activity, too.
The RC-market simply took the AAI that was most easily available instead of critically reviewing what else might be available. Only after the first naphthoyl-AAIs were prohibited, they switched to other derivatives.

I carry no disagreement there.

But outside of the US, and even inside, the banning of the dangerous napthoyl- compounds probably won't impact research on safer alternatives. I mean, take what Huffman said about JWH-018:
"[...] the only thing it is good for is getting you high".

So what? JWH-133 is obviously derived from THC, which is already included in the analogue laws. If such a derivative would ever hit the legal market, it will directly go to one of the schedule lists due the obvious relationship to Schedule 1-compounds.

And btw, the JWH-designation is completely meaningless in this context. It's simply a code derived from Huffman's working group. Neither did his group invent all compounds that have now a JHW-code, nor is the list homogeneous with respect to the structures (at least 3 different basic skeletons), nor have all known AAIs a JWH-code.

The guy I was responding to said he was working with a JWH-compound w.r.t. cancer treatment. I said it might not even be structurally related to the popular RCs.

I admit I'm not terribly familiar with the alkylindoles; however, my understanding was that the cancer-inhibiting properties of THC (moreso CBD, really) are unrelated, pharmacologically, to it's cannabinoid agonist effects, so the chance that the alkylindoles will demonstrate similar potential is rather low.

 

[Phener]

THOUGHTS

Banning talk about compounds - we as bluelighters are doing almost exactly what the "war on drugs" has done. I.e "If we think no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" - somehow the Meph-madness won't happen again. We'll CRACK down hard on any EVIL vendours.

Illusional of control bias - OK bluelight has an INFLUENCE on what happens but to think this board is the sole source of information is absurd.

If we STOP all discussions - another website will pop up to replace this one. Think of napster (music sharing) that was taken down. Then BOOM Suprnova.org (THE biggest site on the net for torrents) brought down by the music industry. All is quiet then BOOM thepiratebay.org comes along + mininova.org. And on and on...

I like bluelight ADD but I would HATE to think it becomes SOOO boring that advanced discussion dry up to slightly more complicated "basic drug discussion" - another board will replace it.

Finally - to limit knowledge to a few privaledged members - I'd bet a good few members considered experts are also vendours. If NOT (hardly believe that) then there is so much DEMAND for RCs right now vendours WILL put in the effort to get privaledged status.

I'm assuming there are already other boards now replacing ADD - I just unfortunately don't know of them (my intentions being knowledge alone)

 

[liquidaddiction]

as someone who certainly wouldn't make the cut to continue viewing add if it was ever made exclusive, i'd like to say i find this ar far the most informative and interesting part of the site and would hate to see it closed to meer mortals.

l

 

[Phener]

hmm final note or maybe WARNING which suddenly crystalised in my head:

As the UK has become AWASH with RC's lately (post meph) and there have been NUMEROUS reports of apparantely legal RC's (e.g 6-apb, diclofensine or choose whichever you want) containing ILLEGAL substances. (annoyingly all crap)hmmm yet the police don't seem to be so concerned with these online suppliers ? All is quiet on the western front...and ecstatic for the users.

Many people (likely the meph generation) probably don't remember operation webtryp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Web_Tryp) and how some members lives (on this board) where SERIOUSLY messed up as a result.

It's obvious by survival of the fittest vendours have survived by knowing the system but it's got to such a crazy state (people desperate for the next rc) that they seem to be forgetting the basics (offering pills with instructions etc). Remember in America even though some of the compounds were analogues but WEREN't being sold for human consumption (yet evidence lay with stupid things like email addresses called [email protected] or [email protected] etc) and of course the numerous tragedy cases.

Something has to give and currentl I PREDICT A RIOT or a stupid analogue law (you choose which is worse) Of course either might actually stop bluelight ADD from becoming so touchy on the subject of discussing ANYTHING the only ONE single benefit from it. Something has to give

 

[atara]

Many people (likely the meph generation) probably don't remember operation webtryp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Web_Tryp) and how some members lives (on this board) where SERIOUSLY messed up as a result.

Another web tryp is not as likely, since this time the "problem" drugs are mostly showing up in Europe. I don't think there have been any confirmed American RC deaths since the last web tryp. Now, the chance that the EU will take sweeping measures to stop the RC trade is comparatively large.

What's more likely is that the DEA will use the larger size of the European RC market w.r.t the American one in their propaganda, so as to claim "they're keeping America safe" or some similarly insidious bullshit.

 

[Symposion]

And please let me point ou:
I do not demand the so-called 'elitism' per se. I rather demand thoughtful and cautios behaviour of the users. If this is not possible, then I call for elitism, i.e. confidentiality and restricted access to resp. forums.

- Murphy

After reading the whole thread, I just can say: TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT.

I don't think that no one is here asking to forbid no information NEEDED for HARM Reduction, but information that in the wrong hands, is a HARM CHANCE for sure.

I think Murphy scores the point.8)

 

[Sturnam]

And btw, the JWH-designation is completely meaningless in this context. It's simply a code derived from Huffman's working group. Neither did his group invent all compounds that have now a JHW-code, nor is the list homogeneous with respect to the structures (at least 3 different basic skeletons), nor have all known AAIs a JWH-code.

Yes, this was my carelessness. What I meant was the compounds with CB1 and CB2 affinity, aka JWH-018, 073, 081, 200, 250, plus whatever active compounds I wasn't aware of with a similar chemical structure. I got lazy and said JWH's, assuming you would realize my intent.

There was at least one major pharma company in Europe who researched the AAIs. This information came from personal communication and I won't comment any further on this.
How good does the AAI you are working with (whichever this may be; no need to name it) fit the US analogue law? I would guess that for some lawyers a N-something-indole-3-acyl-something with significant CB1/2-activity s already enough to sue anybody who owns it (...fits both substantial structural and pharmacological similarity). I admit though, law is anything but my field. I really hope for you that your 'tools' remain perfectly legal until all research is published.


- Murphy

I don't know a whole lot of law either, but I think that the AAI in question wouldn't fit the analogue law. There's no "structurally similar" scheduled compound in the US. Quite a few states have started scheduling JWH-018 and/or 073, but as a nation it remains unregulated. There's also been no mention of it at work needing to be locked up or watched, as our scheduled compounds usually are.
I'm sorry that the AAI's have been taken away from research where you live (Germany, right?). From what little I've seen of the research (the project isn't mine, but a colleague's) on the various AAI's, they really seem to present quite a useful pharmacological tool, and for a variety of ailments. I just hope that the one I'm exposed to at work will be granted immunity if legislation is passed, as it looks like it will provide substantial relief for a difficult disease.

 

[Hammilton]

I wrote a large response but it ended up being deleted by accident. So I'll give a less detailed response for now.

So far no one who's taking the no limitation stance has provided a thoughtful discussion of the issue. The whole "more information is better information" line is practically a cliche at this point. Years ago, before the masquerationals (the synthetic research chemicals masquerading as something else- herbs, bath salts, plant fertilizer, etc), we all thought that just providing more information would make people safer. That's not what has happened though. In many respects we've made things worse. Many of us have done things that raised the interest in drug A or drug B, and some have even caused a drug to start being sold. I have no doubt that my early talks about dimethocaine lead directly to its becoming an RC (one vendor has told me as much), which I hate because it's not a great drug, and is probably nearly as dangerous as cocaine. I also hate that despite my repeat suggestion that if a dimethocaine is going to be sold, it should be para-desaminodimethocaine (DADC). But that never happened.

The only way that more information can be making people safer is if the damage it causes is less than the harm it prevents.

The information in threads here has, and will again, been the direct source of inspiration for drug A or drug B.
These new drugs can cause harm- people have certained died from mephedrone, and one death is being blamed on JWH-018 in the US currently (or maybe it was more generically "Spice" that is the suspected culprit). People have become addicted to MDPV and mephedrone.

How does this information cause harm? They might find a new compound that's a little better than existing drugs. Or a new drug might be found which is a little better than the existing drugs. They might provide dose information that helps guide people to make better choices.

So do we create more harm than we reduce? That's the question that needs to be answered.

 

[amanitadine]

^^^ +1.

And, I would argue unequivocally, that bluelight still reduces much more harm than it creates. While the out of control nature of the "research chemical" market as of late seems positively insane to us, it is really still small fry in the grand scheme of things. ie "illegal" drug use (and drug use numbers as a whole). Keep in mind (for those who can remember) bluelights roots as an MDMA information clearing house. It was a patch of bright light in a sea of misinformation and ignorance. It (along with a few other key sites) has been responsible for such an explosion of knowledge amongst the lay classes that it boggles me. PIHKALs contents used to be so exotic, and to even meet someone who shared in this was a rarity. These compounds are now part of the standard lexicon of every fucktard out there and are considered old hat. This is amazing. This is a good thing. The rush of compounds out there now is a little scary, admittedly. The time from conception to mass market has almost vanished entirely, and the "large scale clinical trials" consist of what is now thousands (if not tens of thousands) of idiots who clamor at each new compounds "release date". Fuck me. Bluelight fills a more than ever critical role of trying to supply information on some of these things. Yeah, certain vendors and compounds have used bluelight as a slingshot for their wares. But I would argue that the harm caused by these is greatly overshadowed by the positive effects bluelight and ADD still serve up. Unquestionably.

Information wants to be free.

 

[agram]

I've always agreed on freedom of information, and love the ADD forums.

It just bothers me that so many chems have recently been brought up here by folk of well, roughly my post count or less, or with a recent join date and either vague discussion on them from the people bringing them up or asking more about them who probably have no clue, and then people with a lot of experience getting involved and huzzah, I see it on RC sites that I know of and know that they deliver. Even if it's not the correct product.

With the whole mephedrone rubbish leaving me with certain types of heart disease, I avoid RCs now, although admittedly there's some great discussion on things that don't make hype.

So, I do have a subjective opinion, but am a bit torn between my love of freedom of information and my health issues, as well as many others myself and others have known. Many of these caused by either the wrong chemicals sent out, no allergy tests, no... Well, no harm reduction.

I'll also add that, when finding this site years before joining, I'd read posts here and think, 'Fuck yeah, I'll try that', and I did. Perhaps the ADD forums give people a sense of irresponsibility? Suggestibility? I was foolish then, but certainly not now. But I doubt I'd be the first or last to do something like that.

I will admit that my health issues have no place in ADD aside from posts I have made in appropriate topics.

I am merely of the opinion that the past year or so the ADD forums have been milked, and harm reduction forgotten. That's why I started this thread, I suppose. Although I am doing my best to read (drug free) in a three day bout of insomnia that some intelligent thoughts have been expressed.

As for recent chemicals coming into ridiculous hype in the EADD, for the sake of harm reduction, it's hard for me to say that on that front it has been helped.

Eh, I really ought to get some sleep.

 

[MagickalKat777]

Honestly if access to ADD was cut off, the vendors (or the labs themselves) would come up with new products to sell that there is absolutely no literature about.

Its already happening if you look at my thread on the 5 new compounds. Those are synthed and ready to go, with ZERO info available in any literature seen. So no knowledge of toxicity, no knowledge of dose, no knowledge if they are even active (I am sure the 3-Me-4-MeO-MCAT is going to be active but I'm not sure if it will be in a good way)... nothing.

Once the free flow of information exchange is stopped or slowed, nothing good will happen - just more chemicals will flood the market with god knows what consequences.

Expect this forum to blow up when Shulgin's book is out though... Everyone is going to be looking for the "best" RC... Both the DEA and the RC community.

 

[pofacedhoe]

I've always agreed on freedom of information, and love the ADD forums.

With the whole mephedrone rubbish leaving me with certain types of heart disease, I avoid RCs now, although admittedly there's some great discussion on things that don't make hype.

So, I do have a subjective opinion, but am a bit torn between my love of freedom of information and my health issues, as well as many others myself and others have known. Many of these caused by either the wrong chemicals sent out, no allergy tests, no... Well, no harm reduction.

I'll also add that, when finding this site years before joining, I'd read posts here and think, 'Fuck yeah, I'll try that', and I did. Perhaps the ADD forums give people a sense of irresponsibility? Suggestibility? I was foolish then, but certainly not now. But I doubt I'd be the first or last to do something like that.

.

thing is that people on ADD like F&B did warn people about mephedrone long before it blew out of control and they predcited the problems that came before they started to become common knowledge.

ADD was always the place to come to hear about how bad mephedrone was from the get go. it was the one place on this site where use of meph was discouraged...

 

[Phener]

Expect this forum to blow up when Shulgin's book is out though... Everyone is going to be looking for the "best" RC... Both the DEA and the RC community.

I can't quite forsee or imagine at this point the kind of explosion that will happen if/when shulgins new book is released.

If I was him (some have suggested he has backed out of releasing such a book) - i would release it when I am gone. (one final note etc)

 

[syndeusys]

thing is that people on ADD like F&B did warn people about mephedrone long before it blew out of control and they predcited the problems that came before they started to become common knowledge.

ADD was always the place to come to hear about how bad mephedrone was from the get go. it was the one place on this site where use of meph was discouraged...

This is absolutly true. I don't post much in ADD but I love lurking around and learning about all sorts of novel compounds and their pharmacological activity, toxicity, MOA, etc. and have always held meph in very low regard due to the negative posts surrounding it. Such is definitely not the case on OD where I spend the other half of my time. The restricted access to ADD isn't going to solve the problem with the RC scene. It will however block a lot of us from getting access to what I would consider the most valuable and interesting information as threads in OD don't quite have the sophistication or the complexity found in most of ADD. I for one would be quite sad to see it go.