• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

☠ WARNING ☠ Warning: Mislabeled Batch of 2C-B-Fly That Has Caused Deaths

psood0nym said:
No one (or any group) guilty of, what looks to be, at least criminally negligent multiple homicide, among other things, will implicate themselves by responding in any way beyond hiding.
Click to expand...

That is not technically correct. The only way the RC market can survive is by using all the legal caution necessary to avoid any possible issues, from manufacturers to distributors. All RCs I've seen are clearly marked as "Not for Human Consumption" and all such caveats. I've even saw explicit letters written in legalese within some of these packages warning that if anyone ingests any bit of said substance s/he does so on its own risk. And on this batch of BDF (c.f. the picture at erowid) it is cleary marked: "Dangerous if ingested". Thus even if the supplier was liable for prosecution he would be very well legally shielded.

All those who died or suffered because of this clearly and voluntarily ignored such warnings, and unfortunately are on their own.
 
psood0nym said:
I'm not sure it'll shake out that way. Especially not with any international pressure in a country like China.
Click to expand...

No organization is going to exert any pressure on china because of this. No one with any weight cares.
 
so i'm guessing the batch of b-dfly i had years ago wasnt real b-dfly. i had it up to 1.4mg with little to no effects. Still got some of it actually, unless the denatured water it was stored in has gone off or ruined it. i think i'll throw it out, regardless.

i think i submitted that 1.4mg trip report to erowid, perhaps it would be best if i asked them to remove it - i wouldnt want someone to read it and take 1.4mg!!!

RIP to the vendor :(
 
One of the things about bromo-dragonfly is that the R isomer is significantly more potent than the S. Some of the stuff out there is the racemic mix, some of it is the R isomer. Marklar from the dosage you took I suspect that you had the less potent racemic mix of the two isomers. I would guess that the stuff in question here is the R isomer.
 
Shakti said:
One of the things about bromo-dragonfly is that the R isomer is significantly more potent than the S. Some of the stuff out there is the racemic mix, some of it is the R isomer. Marklar from the dosage you took I suspect that you had the less potent racemic mix of the two isomers. I would guess that the stuff in question here is the R isomer.
Click to expand...

A friend has tried 120ugs and had a fantastic time. He thinks its just very potent bromodragonfly (maybe the R isomer) and that's why it sent people to hospital at 1 mg.
 
Damien said:
how can you say that for sure?
Click to expand...

How can you say anything for sure? Never the less, I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one? Legally, all the chinese lab did wrong was fail to live up to a contract. They delivered the wrong product. They didn't endanger anyone (legally), because even the vendor says that it's not to be consumed. Furthermore, the scale of what we're talking about is so so so fucking small that no government is going to take issue with another government over it. Small potatoes. Do you realize how many babies (not drug users, who directly violated the terms of their purchase) got sick from melamine laced baby formula before it became an issue on a governmental level?
 
I'd agree that in the grand scheme of things such as international relations the deaths of a few reckless drug fiends isn't going to even ripple the surface - unless it's some high ranking politicians offspring that was so unlucky.
 
Shakti said:
One of the things about bromo-dragonfly is that the R isomer is significantly more potent than the S. Some of the stuff out there is the racemic mix, some of it is the R isomer. Marklar from the dosage you took I suspect that you had the less potent racemic mix of the two isomers. I would guess that the stuff in question here is the R isomer.
Click to expand...

I always here this, but is there any actual data to support the isomer thing? I feel like that was just speculation to try and explain why different batches had different doses. I would be much more inclined to believe that one of the batches was just very impure, thus the lack of effects at the normal record.
 
Well, the reason I said anything is because the context in which this is occurring is one of a broader, ongoing and accelerating internal crackdown against internet-based drug sellers and stronger regulation of internet-based businesses (see below). International events are pointing Chinese law enforcement straight towards a supplier who mislabeled, then marketed powerful and lethal substances that no one believes are being used solely for legit research (it's an easy nab, and another notch on LE's belts). So I think the the supplier is probably hiding or covering their tracks at this point whether or not actual prosecution will occur. I'm just really skeptical that Chinese LE cares about package labeling and what's technically "legal" in this case. This is a government that, sometimes forcefully, was complicit in evicting over one million people from their homes and trashing the living spaces of those who didn't leave in the lead up to the Olympics. Can you imagine waving a label at such people and believing that protects you from whatever it is they're intent on doing?
BEIJING, May 15 (Xinhua) -- People using the Internet to sell counterfeit medicines in China will face severe punishment as the government amps up the fight against illegal business in the next year, according to a consensus by 13 ministry departments Friday.

The ministerial departments held the meeting to launch a year-long campaign with aims to cut off circulation channels of fake drugs, mainly through online purchasing and postal delivery.

The departments included the Ministry of Health, the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, and ministries of industry and information technology and public security.

This marked the establishment of a mechanism that will more effectively coordinate different departments' work to curb the production and sale of fake products, said Shao Mingli, vice minister of health and the head of the SFDA.

He said as pharmacies are strictly regulated, but online dealers have now emerged as a new hotbed for counterfeit medicines. Illegal dealers publish online advertisements to lure customers, who then make payment when the product is delivered to their doorstep.

Regulations in China asked businesses to acquire qualification and permits to conduct online sale of medicines, something which is often ignored by illegal dealers.

This made it difficult for the health and drug watchdogs to solely deal with the problem because regulating online business involves other departments such as the Ministry of Industry and Information.

The new mechanism will enable law enforcers to crack down on fake drugs from production to circulation, by closing down Web sites that advertise fake drugs, and by suspending bank and telephone accounts of companies allegedly involved in illegal trade, Shao said.

The campaign will also target the postal service sector that could be used to deliver fake goods.

The SFDA said in February that law enforcers investigated nearly 300,000 cases of illegal activities related to medicine and medical apparatus in 2008, including the production and sale of fake drugs. A total of 363 production places of fake drugs were closed down and 94 people were charged.
Click to expand...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/15/content_11381741.htm
 
Last edited:
cegli said:
I always here this, but is there any actual data to support the isomer thing? I feel like that was just speculation to try and explain why different batches had different doses. I would be much more inclined to believe that one of the batches was just very impure, thus the lack of effects at the normal record.
Click to expand...

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jm000491y

There is. That's an abstract from one of Nichols' reports on the subject. I'm sure there's a better source than this out there, but this is what 2 minutes of searching turned up. Batch impurity is also a possible explanation for the discrepancy.
 
psood0nym said:
Well, the reason I said anything is because the context in which this is occurring is one of a broader, ongoing and accelerating internal crackdown against internet-based drug sellers and stronger regulation of internet-based businesses (see below). International events are pointing Chinese law enforcement straight towards a supplier who mislabeled, then marketed powerful and lethal substances that no one believes are being used solely for legit research (it's an easy nab, and another notch on LE's belts). So I think the the supplier is probably hiding or covering their tracks at this point whether or not actual prosecution will occur. I'm just really skeptical that Chinese LE cares about package labeling and what's technically "legal" in this case. This is a government that, sometimes forcefully, was complicit in evicting over one million people from their homes and trashing the living spaces of those who didn't leave in the lead up to the Olympics. Can you imagine waving a label at such people and believing that protects you from whatever it is they're intent on doing?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/15/content_11381741.htm
Click to expand...

The problem with this argument is that this company is not selling drugs. They are selling chemicals.... chemicals which are not approved for human use. If some idiot goes out and drinks anti-freeze, does the manufacturer get sued because of it?
 
isotopic_parody said:
The problem with this argument is that this company is not selling drugs. They are selling chemicals.... chemicals which are not approved for human use. If some idiot goes out and drinks anti-freeze, does the manufacturer get sued because of it?
Click to expand...
If the company is suspiciously selling select lines of antifreeze that just happen to be the types that get people really high, maybe. As we're all aware, there are people behind judgments, not just paper and principal and precedent. I think looking to Chinese LE for legal consistency and strong rationale in their actions is being really generous given their track record. If you're a chemist or team that had just sold a chemical you and LE knows is being used to get high, and that chemical just caused multiple deaths internationally with a trail leading straight back to you, and you lived in a country where an ambitious corrupt strong arm no-bullshit government has now started cleaning house in your business neighborhood and distribution network and is looking to bin who they can, is the prudential response to continue business as usual?
 
alright... how about a better example...

Someone goes out and buys robotussin and drinks so much of it that it kills them. Should the manufacturer stop doing business because of this death? They certainly know that people are using it or purposes OTHER than what it is intended for.

Also, I don't know what these impurities are or if they are toxic... but it is very likely that a communication barrier caused the production of bromo-dragonfly instead of 2c-b-fly. Could this have been avoided...? Certainly. Was it directly the fault of the manufacturer? Partially... a good part of partially. Should the manufacturer shut down because of it? No. They should stride for better communication with their customers.

On that note, I think perhaps we should stop this argument here... Two have now died and this substance is still unknown. I think the legal implications can come forth as they may after the fact. Let us not dishonor the dead.

PLUR
 
delsymfan said:
Of this B1 batch from hell?

And you're sure about this?
Click to expand...

Yes. The same batch.
About the isomer, not sure. What is sure is that BDF dosing is not a sure thing (see the erowid two different dosages chart). So this one seems potent and starting at 120 ugs it looks like a winner.

Also, the effects he describes at this dose aren't so long lasting. I'd give you his trip report but it's in Spanish.
 
Shakti said:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jm000491y

There is. That's an abstract from one of Nichols' reports on the subject. I'm sure there's a better source than this out there, but this is what 2 minutes of searching turned up. Batch impurity is also a possible explanation for the discrepancy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know that the R isomer is stronger, that makes sense. Shulgin wrote about how DOB R isomer was the more psychedelic one in the phikal: http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal062.shtml

I just wondered if any actual analysis had been done on the samples of DOB-Dragonfly to support the different isomer thing. I have a feeling the less potent batch was just impure or was something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top