You know, this is exactly what I think. I wonder if the reason that a good number of people say that they're mostly indistinguishable is because there are a number of older reports around from people who had tried each once, maybe twice. They then wrote their reports as if they were fact, when in reality they had not had enough experience with the compounds to make that sort of generalization about the similarity of their effects. I know that before I ever tried any of the more obscure psychedelics, my perception of the 4-substituted tryptamines was that they were all essentially the same with maybe slight differences, other than duration. Then when I tried them I discovered that they are all unique and I wondered how someone who gave them a reasonable series of trials could possibly think they were all the same.butane said:Simply comparing the effects of plain 4-hydroxys and their 4-acetoxy counterparts should be a dead giveaway that they're more than just prodrugs.
A quick glance at my first post in this thread will show I agree with the consensous here about the full and independent activity of 4-AcO-DMT as 4-AcO-DMT. However, for the sake of fun quibbling allow me to play devil's advocate and say that the simple fact that the 4-AcOs and 4-hos are contrasted with one another is not sufficient to infer that the AcO is not a prodrug i.e. is not fully active on its own. The best, and only strong evidence of that is the immediate activity of the AcO via the IV route (the rest of the reasons for thinking that are mostly pragmatic, as there are a number of coincidences between independent reports of qualitative difference that are easier to explain if the AcO is fully active on its own, but this is hardly definitive.) The reason I say this is because the rate of absorbtion clearly affects the subjective experience of other drugs. Everyone agrees the experience of smoked or IVd DMT is distinct in QUALITY, not just "quantity," from even extremely high oral doses (who knows why exactly, but it is.) The reports that IM doses of DMT are far more comparable to oral doses than smoked or IVd doses indicates that the rate of absorption factors heavily in subjective qualitative experience independently of the presence of an MAOI. On this interpretation of the AcO as a prodrug, the qualitative differences--for example, that the AcOs are "smoother" than the hos--are a reflection purely of the slower absorption of the drug due to conversion time. Also, a prodrug is not necessarily completely inactive, only significantly less active than its "active" metabolite. So as devil's advocate I can also say that the AcO's small but not entirely insignificant independent activity in tandem with its slower rate of absorption is sufficient to explain the qualitative differences between it and the ho while maintaining that the AcO is still a prodrug.butane said:Simply comparing the effects of plain 4-hydroxys and their 4-acetoxy counterparts should be a dead giveaway that they're more than just prodrugs. It's entirely possible, even likely, that the acetoxy is metabolized to a hydroxy, as that is known to happen with heroin, but I would wager that most of it reaches the brain unchanged.