PDA

View Full Version : The drugs of the future!



twominds
05-08-2005, 21:35
Is it just me but it seems that there hasn't been a substance to take off for a great many years? Crack emerged in mid 80's around the same time MDMA took off. Over the last 20 years there hasn't been a new drug to hit the streets. Research chemicals, most synthesised by Shuglin are around but don't look like taking off such as what happened with E. Although to a small extent GHB and ketamine hit the mainstream but in light flurries and don't seem like being the next E. I have read some article with the author stating 2-CE will be the new E.
I, like many others are becoming impatient!!
Do you see anything on the horizon? Or do you see a drug taking off?
In 2015 for example are we still going to have the same old marijuana, lsd, heroin, E, coke etc....

Witch Doctor
06-08-2005, 01:33
yeah ive wondered this myself actually.. i really thought RCs would have taken off more by now, but i think the crack down of all the internet sites selling RCs killed it, just as quick as they came they were gone (well in my circles anyhow). everyone seems to like the RCs specially 2CI/E.

ive got no idea if they are harder to synthesis than things like LSD or MDxA. so that could be a driving factor, u wouldnt really want to but much effort into other drugs when MDxA type drugs are still selling like hot cakes..

Living_life
06-08-2005, 05:14
Thought about this so many times. My money is on some or few RCs on coming fairly mainstream. Or maybe there will be a whacked analogue of cocaine made like in the book 'the alchemist' which would be cool but probably wishful thinking. :)

ticktock
06-08-2005, 05:35
I can't remember where, but I'm sure I read somewhere on this site (Bluelight) that we should be expecting a few new more potent, more euphoric Opioids with less potential to be physically addictive.
Or maybe I think someone mentioned that the pharm corps are looking at new opiates that contain no recreational benefit at all. I can't remember which one.

Maybe, for now you could accept that there is about as many drugs as there is ever going to be?
There is quite a few you know?

KrisChris
06-08-2005, 08:19
mm yeah i guess what you are saying is true twominds.. but i know down here in australia,melbourne Ghb,gbl,1,4b or wotever we r getting down here has really taken off. alotttt of people in melb take G in the rave scene. but i think that would really be the extent of G use in melb.

Cheshire Cat ^..^
06-08-2005, 13:33
The thing with RCs is that MDMA was once an RC. How many different chemicals Shulgin tried? And he still reckons there's nothing like MDMA.

ozmund
06-08-2005, 13:39
MDMA with no side effects would be ideal

gher
06-08-2005, 14:04
I think one of the reasons LSD and MDMA took off like they did was because of the initial research into using them for therapy. It was because of it that word got out about the great power of these drugs and people started using them recreationally. I think the 'next big thing' in psychedelics at least will have to have therapeutic potential for researchers to get its name out.

Witch Doctor
07-08-2005, 03:24
^^ thats an interesting point. do u know of any drugs being currently trialed? i know MDMA is being used in afew studies for afew things..

but anything out there being new and interesting being played with by scientists?

phase_dancer
07-08-2005, 04:33
I can think of few candidates that might serve as popular new recreational drugs, but as to whether any of these would, or could catch on in quite the same way MDMA did is another thing.

The logistics of large scale distribution is a big one and a few points should be considered when deciding whether or not something has the potential to replicate what MDMA achieved i.e. become popular, and be able to be produced and transported on the scale MDMA has..


For this discussion, I'm discounting the points gher made regarding the medical use of MDMA and LSD, and that popularity was a flow on affect from this – I’m not saying this wasn't in part the case, but other factors, such as a lack of effective detection methods in the 60's-70's definitely helped. Also, with LSD, in many ways a social need for a liberating drug like LSD already existed - public discontent at the time with Vietnam and the US government, trends in music and art, liberalisation and free thinking in the west, the Age of Aquarius, etc - and that made LSD readily acceptable to the youth and counter culture of the time.

MDMA on the other hand was somewhat different in that the drug was in part responsible for starting it’s own culture through raves. The social need may have been similar to the 60’s revolution, but the outlets were quickly limited by scheduling of the drug in 1985 and unlike LSD it was never marketed by a pharmaceutical company. So, while it was also initially used outside a medical environment by US "housewives and 9-5'ers" in many ways global popularity came about through a far more underground movement.

Since the advent of MDMA, the world has become a different place. The popularity of MDMA caught the DEA totally by surprise. Following its emergency scheduling, measures were introduced to prevent this sort of thing happening again. So, I believe that if we are to talk of a "new drug", then besides the obvious euphoric properties such a drug would need to possess in order to gain widespread acceptance from the MDMA market, optimally it will also need to be;

Legal: fall outside the far reaching grasp of the analogues bill - particularly the Australian version, which is one of the toughest and most comprehensive forms of legislation existing. This piece of legislation was designed with great foresight: to provide a means of stopping or intercepting the next potentially big illicit drug discovery or fad.

Be difficult to detect. Perhaps a super potent drug may be able to be shipped in sufficient quantities so as to avoid or minimise chances of detection. If this drug was odourless and able to be completely cleaned to remove any scents from solvents etc, it may improve chances of it being smuggled successfully.

Be easy to manufacture, from easily obtainable or non-restricted chemicals. While it wouldn't necessarily need to be manufactured by an OTC method, the chemicals required would need to be fairly commonly used in industry, and probably not be substances listed in the present "Code of Practice for Supply Diversion into Illicit Drug Manufacture"

So there's how I see the requirements and basic logistics of getting a new drug out there. Some group may take a gamble and mass produce tons of a drug before unleashing it on the world, but if it's to spread like MDMA did - ( see Ecstasy Rising - ABC US- with Peter Jennings) - then IMO it will need to possess some of these properties as well as be already accepted by, and desired by, present drug users. Ecstasy Rising mentions that a drug like MDMA comes about every 50 years or so, and perhaps it will be less next time, but the world and it’s drug taking inhabitants are different to the period preceding the E revolution. They like the comfort and familiarity of MDMA and are not necessarily so keen for a replacement. Add that on to the powerful lobby against drugs, and the sophisticated methods to detect them that exist today, and I think it would be a daunting task, unless the methods of distribution were innovative and very large scaled.

That’s not to say there won’t be attempts, it’s just they are more likely to be chopped off at the knees before society at large has experienced, and wants more of the new, better and improved “ecstasy”. Unless of course drugs are legalised, and then you can bet we'll see the pharmaceutical companies take over, releasing compounds that are both safe and cheap, as well as being full of desired properties ( see "If drugs were legal - BBC)

Spleh
07-08-2005, 06:21
If it's going to take off it will most likely have to be some form of euphoric club drug without the depth of psychedelics, which is why I don't think most of the 2c's will take off. Guess some people just don't like purdy visuals

etardedadam
07-08-2005, 07:35
I feel the next drug will be a plant. Something from the far reaches of the world, one that can adapt to grow anywhere. Potent at low doses. Everybody get out and start searching, eating random plants, it could be right under our noses.

candyslut
07-08-2005, 07:36
Originally posted by ozmund
MDMA with no side effects would be ideal

as would amphetamines.

and come to think of, methamphetamines.

oh yeah, and lets not forget LSD.

In fact, ANY drug that without their correlative side effects would be ideal.

8)

ps what about alcohol without its side effects?:p ;)

Cheshire Cat ^..^
07-08-2005, 12:57
I take alcohol as 90% side effect. :)

ayjay
09-08-2005, 05:06
Well - I think the next big drug will be legal, and taken for workplace performance enhancement. Something like Modafinil is in the running - 3 times in the last 6 months I've come across mentions of this drug in mainstream media - talking about "cognitive enhancement" and "increased productivity". If the zeitgeist informs substance use (and I think it does - I agree with P_D's analysis of LSD popularity), then the free market mentality driving social policy these days has got to have an impact. No-one's got time to be whacked out on crazy psychedelics - we've all got to be forceful and dynamic and productive. Psychedelics inform being; stimulants inform doing. Something like Modafinil, with little/no recreational value, but which increases concentration and output, has clear advantages in these terms over amphetamines and cocaine.

And don't forget the huge surge in prescription drug use in places like the US and Australia over the last decade. How many people do you know on anti-depressants of one kind or another? Taking drugs to be normal is now... well - normal. :p

BigTrancer
09-08-2005, 16:02
I recall I posted my thoughts on the next big 'club drug' in a similar thread a few years ago, let me see if I can dig it up.

Here it is: What comes next? (http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56277) (2002). I wonder if anyone has changed their ideas since then?

BigTrancer :)

KemicalBurn
10-08-2005, 02:34
The public opinion of american meth users from "other" drug takers is that tweakers are pretty much hated (mostly from the opiate users).

This is what i can gather from the trend of discussion in DC. I think it will be short-lived and i think its dying out actually.

happydaze
10-08-2005, 03:36
you all havent heard of kkbe! what is all over the usa. best psychedelic out there hehe

on_the_rise_5
10-08-2005, 04:48
i think a mad new amphetamine will come around, well i hope so anyway, not sure what else they could do to make them better but yeh, maybe one that doesnt have like an aggression sde effect sometimes or something like that

gritty404
15-09-2005, 11:42
lots of new pharmacuticles...benzo's ssri's painkillers and alike.