• 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 |

Why do we call them RCs on Bluelight?

I use "research chemical" because it's the term used on Erowid and by all the vendors, and also because it's a reminder that the consequences of using these substances are still somewhat of a mystery.

Classic "drugs" like marijuana, LSD, and cocaine have been used by millions of people over decades or centuries; that gives us a pretty good idea of what they do and lets us make well-informed decisions. But when we take something like methoxetamine or 5-APB, we're the guinea pigs. They may not be controlled studies, but our experiences are the initial "research" on these chemicals.

I don't like the term "designer drugs", partly because it reminds me of sensational news stories, but mostly because "designer" sounds like it's about the person who designed them. I might care about the name in "Sid Meier's Civilization", but not "Alexander Shulgin's Methylone".
 
^^ good point.
and also "designer drug" sound too flashy, i dont think theres anything flashy about a pile of smelly meph.
 
I'm an organic chemist; so to me, "RCs" are just organic compounds like any other. I only categorize when its useful, and IMO the term "RC" isn't a useful term for categorization -- and neither is "designer drug".

I'm only interested in terms that give me some indication of the compound's structure, all other means of categorization are worthless.
 
i make another destincion : desiger drugs are ones that work , RC's dont always work , check shulgins books for a whole bunch of ineffective compounds.

most designer drugs were rc's at one time.
 
JBrandon said:
These products are designer drugs, plain and simple. On other forums, where sources are discussed, people try to hide behind the RC moniker, SWIMing, and plant talk, but all of us and all of LE know exactly what this shit is.
Click to expand...

Because when people say things like "they are designer drugs, plain and simple", it turns them from a legitimate compound that has the potential to be used to an analog of an illegal drug therefore making it illegal.

It's also less shady than selling these compounds as "bonsai tree feed" or "bath salts".

I mean, you seriously have to ask?

They're already going away one by one. If you want them to all disappear, keep it up.

It's a *wink wink* business.

This is about harm reduction and discussion. By referring to dealers as vendors and designer drugs as RCs, we put the idea into the heads of the naive and young that this is so much more legit of an enterprise than it is.
Click to expand...

This is also heavily monitored by law enforcement agents around the world. So discretion would be nice.

I realize a lot of vendors would take offense to being referred to as a dealer, but at the end of the day, how many of them pay taxes on these sales? How many of them, if someone were to OD, would not immediately close up shop and disappear? There are some vendors that I fucking love and respect, but at the end of the day, if you have to use hushmail to talk about a purchase, you're not exactly a legit business.
Click to expand...

Vendors with websites do pay taxes.

And those that don't? What do you care? Do you care when you buy a bag of weed off of someone that they're not paying taxes (which is just one great example of why it should be regulated like alcohol and tobacco).

This being said, I personally have no problem with the terminology we use, I just wonder sometimes if all this RC and vendor talk is lulling people into a false sense of security.
Click to expand...

No, it's to keep the industry going.

The people who are "lulled into a false sense of security" are the same people who would be chewing on datura or trying to mix every drug in their parents medicine closet.

Virtually every substance you would get says "NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION". That should tell people something.

If in any way I felt that this terminology helped to keep this scene out of the mainstream and under the radar, I would back it 100%, but I think we are well past those days now. I could be wrong, and I'm open to other views.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are past those days, which is why more and more vendors have gone more and more underground and why there are some shady vendors and compounds going around.

I'm not trying to be rude when I say this, but keep your mouth shut. That is the best way to preserve what's left of the scene. Just don't talk about it. When marijuana is regulated and peoples perceptions start changing, go right ahead. But for now, it's much better to keep your mouth shut. If someone wants to know about what they are ingesting, being that virtually all of these compounds are obtained over the internet, there is absolutely no excuse as to why they can't research what they are doing first on Erowid.
 
3rd_I_blind said:
Interesting point. :)

I actually had an argument one time with a guy who was truly convinced they were called research chemicals because they were used in research.
Click to expand...

That's also a good point. Because there are a lot of people I know that won't use "research chemicals" because they truly believe they are untested and aren't meant for human consumption..... which they aren't. And that in itself is good.

I know far more people that are unwilling to try drugs they have never heard of in the drug portion of a health class. And I think that's great. Because people who lack that kind of curiosity shouldn't be messing around with this stuff in the first place.

And eh, substances such as MDMA and ketamine didn't really show up until the late 80's and didn't get to the masses until the late 90's. Prior to that, it was very rare for the common high school kid to know what they were. MDMA was absolutely a legitimate research drug. As was LSD.
 
This is the most articulate, well-written and -reasoned discussion I've read on BL. It honestly never occurred to me to call RCs "designer drugs". Even if correct, the term reminds me of Studio 54 in the 80s. It's already bad enough that certain chems are given exciting names. Google '5-apb' and nearly every hit lists Benzo Fury. If all RCs are lumped together and called "designer drugs", I fear what's already been said: new users won't do enough - if any - research about dosage, combinations, or recommended conditions before taking whatever's available. Right or wrong, most people hear "designer drug" and think "party drug". The media call experimental compounds for medical treatment "promising pharmaceutical therapies" or "potentially life-saving new cures", not "designer drugs". Big Pharma knows the deal: that term scares off customers. It seems inevitable that referring to RCs as such will just incite widespread hysteria and, soon, they'll all be criminalized.
 
Last edited:
They got coined RCs because the abbreviation also means "retarded crap".

I.E...

Hey man I got my RC I ordered off the internet.

You got a remote control car off the internet?

No man, my retarded crap. I just snorted a bunch of it last night and had to go to the hospital.
 
Love In Vein said:
I'm not trying to be rude when I say this, but keep your mouth shut. That is the best way to preserve what's left of the scene. Just don't talk about it. When marijuana is regulated and peoples perceptions start changing, go right ahead. But for now, it's much better to keep your mouth shut. If someone wants to know about what they are ingesting, being that virtually all of these compounds are obtained over the internet, there is absolutely no excuse as to why they can't research what they are doing first on Erowid.
Click to expand...

I agree with your post except for the above paragraph. Yes, keeping your mouth shut is the best way to preserve the scene, but I'm not sure that's what we want. The scene right now is not necessarily a pretty place. It's relatively safe for smart people like us (heh), but for most drug-doers, keeping your mouth shut prevents a lot of valuable information about substances from being circulated. I say the more knowledge spreading the better. Not everybody is going to go to erowid.

I say keep your mouths open (and always saying the truth) and that is the best way for harm reduction to happen.

I think the kind of secrecy you speak of is a) dangerous and b) not realistic in this day and age.

~~~

Personally, the term "designer drug" is offensive to me, because people use it to refer to drugs with serious potential for benefit if used correctly, i.e. ketamine, mdma, 4-aco-DMT, 2c-xs,. "Designer drug" implies:
-should be illegal
-just for partying
-it's fashionable? a fad?
It just sounds like a "scare tactic" term.

"research chemical" has its issues too, but it's the term I naturally use.

PS- This thread makes me proud to be part of Bluelight.

PPS- Do we have proof that this site is "heavily monitored"?
 
Last edited:
IamMe90 said:
Just like this post 8)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you're right... RCs are great. I'm going to go shoot or snort a chemical that I have no idea what the short and long term side effects could be. That sounds like a great idea. It must be relatively safe if you can get it legally off the internet right? 8)
 
nuttynutskin said:
RCs are great. I'm going to go shoot or snort a chemical that I have no idea what the short and long term side effects could be. That sounds like a great idea. It must be relatively safe if you can get it legally off the internet right? 8)
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's so much better to just smoke a few cigarettes, drink beer all night and finish off with a big cup of coffee to feel sober again. At least you will know for sure the substances you ingested all cause cancer. And the fact that they only give you a really shitty high, oh well...

(retard :|)
 
3rd_I_blind said:
Yeah, it's so much better to just smoke a few cigarettes, drink beer all night and finish off with a big cup of coffee to feel sober again. At least you will know for sure the substances you ingested all cause cancer. And the fact that they only give you a really shitty high, oh well...

(retard :|)
Click to expand...

Show me where beer and coffee causes cancer... Yea you got me with the cancer sticks but I don't smoke all the time, and I never said cigs were good either so quit putting words in my mouth. The main difference with the substances you listed and RCs is that I know what the risks are. The risks aren't well known for most RCs. Just look at how many people have problems related to them on this site. If you want to act as a human guinea pig and ingest substances that aren't well known and could be cut with who knows what go ahead, but this retard still thinks it's a stupid risk.
 
nuttynutskin said:
Show me where beer and coffee causes cancer... Yea you got me with the cancer sticks but I don't smoke all the time, and I never said cigs were good either so quit putting words in my mouth. The main difference with the substances you listed and RCs is that I know what the risks are. The risks aren't well known for most RCs. Just look at how many people have problems related to them on this site. If you want to act as a human guinea pig and ingest substances that aren't well known and could be cut with who knows what go ahead, but this retard still thinks it's a stupid risk.
Click to expand...

Firstly, alcohol definitely does cause cancer (it is especially correlated with stomach and esophageal cancers). I can post references if you absolutely demand peer-reviewed verification of that, but its basically common knowledge.

Secondly, this is so stupid. This thread is primarily about nomenclature and labelling issues, I can't really understand why you're using this particular thread as a forum to harangue against this mythical category of drugs called "RCs" (implicitly grouping all of these compounds together, regardless of potentially vast differences in structure and activity).

Also, its not really true that we are completely oblivious to the long-term effects of "RCs". What about a compound like 4-ACO-DMT, which is nearly identical in structure to a compound with thousands of years of ritual use (4-PO-DMT)? There's absolutely no reason to believe that such a compound would be any less safe than its naturally-occurring analogue. Bah, this is just one example, I could go on and on.

The bottom line is that you're attempting to make a sweeping generalization about many compounds that aren't even related to each other. If you want to speculate as to the safety of ingesting certain drugs, its necessary to evaluate each compound individually -- especially when referring to a pseudo-category like "RCs". Saying "all RCs are dangerous" is just as retarded as saying "all RCs are harmless": its just plain overly-simplistic crap.
 
Ok maybe I oversimplified, but I still think a lot of them have dangerous side effects and people don't know what the short and long term side effects are since a lot of the chemicals haven't been well studied. I'm old school tho, I say if you want to trip drop acid or eat some shrooms, fuck this bath salt bullshit. lol
 
*sigh*

People don't trip off of fucking bath salts dude. 95% of the users that post here in PD wouldn't touch a bath salt. Generally, we pay for pure chemicals that have some sort of testing provided or verification through the experience of others that it is indeed the chemical in question.

Yes, I love acid and mushrooms - but you're doing yourself a disservice (imo) by restricting yourself to those two substances (or DMT, mescaline and those)... there are SO many psychedelic RCs that have a huge variety of effects profiles and unique visual/auditory distortions. But anyway, that's enough of this, because it isn't relevant to the discussion.
 
knockando said:
I always thought designer drug sounded like something that came out of the fashion industry. Do you like my new Prada phenethylamine derivative?
Click to expand...

That made me laugh hard enough to disturb my scale, just before scooping up a perfect 30mg pile of Juicy Coture 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-n-propylthiophenethylamine!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top