• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

☛ Official ☚ The Small & Handy 2-Trifluoromethyldeschloroketamine (2-TFMDCK, TFM-K) Thread

roi

roi

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,545
v7ppaGB.png


Probably the last substance to be released in the UK before the ban on 26. May :X

Hope it's a good one!
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

The law bans these compounds if they have an alkyl group on the phenyl ring.

If an alkyl group is "An alkyl group is a piece of a molecule with the general formula C2n+1H2n+1" then they are in the clear with this one legally because that TFM group doesn't have any hydrogen in it!
 
Transform said:
Interesting.

The law bans these compounds if they have an alkyl group on the phenyl ring.

If an alkyl group is "An alkyl group is a piece of a molecule with the general formula C2n+1H2n+1" then they are in the clear with this one legally because that TFM group doesn't have any hydrogen in it!
Click to expand...

They missed haloalkyl in the ACH analogue law altogether, the hydrogen is irrelevent, fluoroethyl should also be legal.
 
I wonder why they didn't just go with 2-fluoroketamine. A lot of people like that one, and it seems to be almost as potent as ket. Maybe 3 flourines are getting closer to chlorine in size, and in that way this might be more potent and subjectively feel more like real K.

We'll see :)

Edit:

WAIT. Of cause TFM is way bigger than chlorine. This isn't going to be like ketamine at all. I really have a hard time seeing what they were thinking about, when they thought this one up.
 
Last edited:
I don't suppose anyone can hazard a guess as to whether this will carry the same toxicity to bladder cells as it's parent compound?
 
lol this thread =D

I'm looking hard for decent and reasonable disso's, so I'll be jumping on this if it is not as expensive as 2-fluoro-DCK.

Mazzy nobody knows for sure as you probably realize, but in truth I would be surprised if the 2-substitution made much of a difference. For a drug's action on receptors, the exact structure is a big deal and minor changes can have extreme consequences for activity of a drug. However for bladder toxicity presumably the irritant nature of ACA metabolites is the culprit, which is not action on receptors but general action on all tissues exposed; and physical properties don't tend to change as wildly if you modify a structure in a relatively minor way.

I really hope this TFM is like a heavy K version, the 2-fluoro was nice but like K light. Nice at moderate doses as a pleasant drug, but that's a different game than dissociating hard which I imagine is costly with 2-fluoro (I haven't taken it that far, my sample and circumstance wouldn't allow it).
What I really hope is that this does not go in a 2-methoxy-DCK direction which I found pretty horrible, but luckily TFM is different enough from a methoxy.

TFM is a group used in drugs as a bioisostere to mimic e.g. chloride or methyl. But I'd forget the latter cause of the polarity difference. I imagine that's kinda what's wrong with a methoxy for placement on the 2-pos of ket.
 
Solipsis said:
TFM is a group used in drugs as a bioisostere to mimic e.g. chloride or methyl. But I'd forget the latter cause of the polarity difference. I imagine that's kinda what's wrong with a methoxy for placement on the 2-pos of ket.
Click to expand...
Yes, of cause. Size of the TFM group, is probably going be closer to chlorine in size, just more electronegative. (Carbon and flourine both in the first period, chlorine in the second) This might turn out good actually. :D

Hope I'll get a chance to grab some.
 
Incunabula said:
I wonder why they didn't just go with 2-fluoroketamine. A lot of people like that one, and it seems to be almost as potent as ket. Maybe 3 flourines are getting closer to chlorine in size, and in that way this might be more potent and subjectively feel more like real K.

We'll see :)

Edit:

WAIT. Of cause TFM is way bigger than chlorine. This isn't going to be like ketamine at all. I really have a hard time seeing what they were thinking about, when they thought this one up.
Click to expand...

2-fluoroketamine is illegal here in the UK. The vendor bringing this to market could not choose that. the loophole being exploited is that alkyl and halide groups are covered by law, but haloalkyl is not (and it's a distinct definition in the MoDA as it's used in other analogue clauses)
 
Any experiences? I don't see much purpose for these random dissociative RCs, none are unique like MXE.

Ketamine is available and is in most cases it seems the safest choice? Waste of money?
 
"Unique" doesn't mean what you think it does. Every substance is unique.

Given Ketamines low potency and bladder toxicity, it's probably not the safest choice most of the time, at least if use it a lot. Also not exacty legal ;)
 
Not only is TFM much bulkier than chlorine, it should also withdraw much more electron density overall via resonance:
JGTRTLI.png
.
With that + charge delocalized over the ring, as seen in this paper that looked at different substituent effects on aromatic ring reactivity:

pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja00341a032

Don't know how correct this is since it's been a while since I took organic chemistry, or what this would mean for 2-TFMDCK's activity vs. ketamine, but maybe someone more knowledgeable could offer some insight.
 
Last edited:
jammin83 said:
The naming of some of these compounds is just getting ridiculously confusing.

2-TFMDCK is the shorthand? 8(
Click to expand...

Yeah. I agree :) Just wait until they release the N-ethyl version -> 2-TFMDCNENK

Try to say that really fast.
 
You could call it 2-TFM-2'-Oxo-PCM if that makes you happier.
 
roi said:
You could call it 2-TFM-2'-Oxo-PCM if that makes you happier.
Click to expand...

It doesn't :) Either way, people are just going to call it Tiffy anyway. I probably am. lol

No seriously. Maybe trifluoro-ketamine or TFM-K would have been more straight forward. But it doesn't matter. 2-TFMDCK is the official one and there's no doubt about that, since that's what the vendor chose and it's not particularly nonsensical - The only problem is that it just doesn't roll of the tongue, so to speak.

But enough about that!
 
Last edited:
roi said:
"Unique" doesn't mean what you think it does. Every substance is unique.

Given Ketamines low potency and bladder toxicity, it's probably not the safest choice most of the time, at least if use it a lot. Also not exacty legal ;)
Click to expand...

Yes every substance is unique. But more in this case is it actually worth trying for say recreational or reflective purposes? A lot of the dissociative chemicals available other than Ketamine/MXE/3-MEO-PCP I find just fall into or between these chems effects spectrum. They're good benchmarks for trying to associate and describe effects between other chemicals.

What I've tried of these 'dissociative rcs' have all been interesting and I've enjoyed experiencing the effects on my mind. I've just not found much value in pursuing them beyond experimenting at low/medium/high dose and that's it. Ketamine or MXE when pure though are a different story for me as recreational drugs.

I'm hopeful for this though. But I'm also cautious it's just a final money grab by RC websites going out. Hopefully see a few trip reports soon.
 
Last edited:
2-TFMDCK is the official one and there's no doubt about that, since that's what the vendor chose
Click to expand...

Actually that was my decision after reading the structures IUPAC =D

[MENTION=350043]lysergamide[/MENTION] Comes down to personal preference I guess, some people like A, others prefer B. Having many options available is a good thing though, as taking the same substance over and over again becomes rather boring after some time.
 
(stupid comment about acronym removed after sobering up...)

But seriously, "two tee eff em dee cee kay" sure is a mouthful 8)
 
Last edited:
So.... TFM essentially acts like a giant fucking halogen, right? Kind of what Astatine would be like if it were stable.
I wonder about its metabolic fate though - can you cleave off a TFM group at the "stem" (the bond between the aromatic ring and the carbon in the CF3 group), or is that carbon somehow "shielded" by the fluorine?

Sorry if this is going off-topic :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top