Silk Road forums

Discussion => Drug safety => Topic started by: kmfkewm on April 07, 2013, 04:37 pm

Title: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: kmfkewm on April 07, 2013, 04:37 pm
I don't get it. I keep seeing people saying things like "People only use research chemicals because they cannot get the real thing" etc. I guess their perception of research chemicals might be different from mine, because the RC scene these days has kind of changed to more mimicking drugs (spice to mimic weed, mephedrone to mimic cocaine, etc) and when I was heavily involved in it this was not the case. It sucks to see so many people biased against all drugs that are not mainstream simply because they associate them all with that legal highs trash. They seem to think that only drugs like LSD or MDMA are worth a damn, and to completely disregard the literally thousands of other drugs out there. I mean, I tried a few of the synthetic cannabis type products (in powder form, sometimes sprayed onto plant material) and I can agree that I would not tend to use these if I had marijuana available. But just because I have an unlimited supply of LSD doesn't mean I wouldn't ever want to take 2c-b , or 2c-t-2, or 2c-i or 4-aco-dmt etc.

The more old school research chemicals are pretty fucking awesome actually, and you are really missing out on a wide range of experiences if you don't give them a shot. Another problem with the newer research chemicals is that a lot of them seem to be extremely sketchy in the safety department, and of course they have not been researched at all. The older research chemicals (from Pihkal and Tihkal) have also mostly not been researched, but all but the most obscure of them have been sampled by thousands of people by now, over a lot of years. Some of them are not even really worthy of being called research chemicals anymore, like 2c-b has probably been used by millions of people around the world now and it has been being used for many years. It has a well established safety profile at this point, and is actually probably even safer than MDMA.

The effects of these drugs are not knock off effects of drugs like LSD and MDMA, they are their own unique experiences, not designed to try to mimic other things. I have not found a psychedelic I enjoy more than LSD, but I also immensely enjoyed my 2c-b experiences, my 2c-t-2 experiences, my 5-meo-dmt experiences, etc. There is a full world of psychedelic effects out there and it makes me sad to see people who are biased against these drugs simply because the most recent things being called research chemicals are largely dangerous knock off trash. 
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: jackofspades on April 07, 2013, 04:59 pm
Good post, I agree the phrase 'research chemical' is most often associated with a legal high (which is no 'high' at all).
I still prefer LSD over bombs and MDMA over methylone and weed over spice (never tried spice actually) but i guess
im just old fashioned. The problem i have when i tell my friends or customers that something is a bomb, i usually say
that it will be similar to acid. Whether they have dropped acid (real acid) before or not, i know they will not be as experienced
as i am to know the differences.

I, like you, wish more people were willing to try them with an open mind but part of the problem is,
these are soo cheap and way easier to come by than LSD.
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: DrugsAreFun on April 07, 2013, 05:40 pm
Surprised you like Spice over the real ganja.  Most people say the opposite claiming Spice has more side effects.  I think the deal is that a lot of people just like to buy what they know instead of gambling on an RC.  Also, you're right that lately they've just been trying to mimic other drugs in hopes of selling their product for that precious few months of grey-area legality.  A lot of those products end up being dangerous too.  The whole bath salts and mephedrone (bath salts are mostly mephedrone right?) comes to mind because you're literally better off smoking crystal meth than doing that shit.

Things get better with psychedelic RCs though.  There's still some dangerous ones but there's also some fairly safe chemicals that don't just try to copy another drug.  2C-B comes to mind as one of the few RCs I've done and I had a great trip (and much different than LSD/shrooms) with that.

You basically just have to sort out the good from the crap.  If a product is hastily rushed to market and branded to be sold in head shops, there's a very good chance it hasn't been tested nearly enough and you should probably look the other way.
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: zvp1014 on April 07, 2013, 05:45 pm
Less fame = less testing = less of a safety profile.

Otherwise, for the more researched chemicals I'll gladly give them a go.
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: astor on April 07, 2013, 07:54 pm
I think you provided several answers to your own question, haha.
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: Sensei on April 08, 2013, 01:19 am
Less fame = less testing = less of a safety profile.

Otherwise, for the more researched chemicals I'll gladly give them a go.

This is exactly why RC's don't appeal to me. Call me a wuss or what ever but I just like to feel completely safe about what ever I'm on, so no matter what I feel I know that it's only the drug and not a potential overdose and I've read some pretty messed up things about the results of dosing too much on some of the RC's that are out there.
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: Ben on April 08, 2013, 01:44 am
Research chemicals are exactly what their name implies. These substances usually have not ran through the fda procedures that would deem them effective and safe for use by the general public.

This does not mean that anything unsafe has been found about them though, just that no sufficient testing has been performed to classify them as harmless.

It leaves a gap of uncertainty around them though. Things like synthetic cannabinoid agonists have only demonstrated affinity and activaction of the receptor, but no studies have been performed to their adverse effects.  This by no means implies that there are any negative effects either, but it doesnt preclude that their could be. If you decide to use these substancers you are the test subject. You will probably be fine, but if you are not, reporting back any adverse effects ti the people that published these substances is a good idea,

Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: jagfug on April 08, 2013, 01:53 am
If you like them, do them!

Why  do you need our justification?

Unless you are selling them, then I get it. Otherwise, why raise the point? Those who want to explore will explore. I don't see anyone of us on here, who've spoken for or against RC's, changing people's drug taking decisions. - I don't even like MDMA, and consider that an RC, that's me, and believe me, I have enough of a problem with the tried and true drugs, so there's no need in convincing me. I'm sure some of them are the bees knees!

So enjoy yourself!

Don't let us stop you!

peace

jagfug
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: moonflower on April 08, 2013, 02:01 am
If you like them, do them!

Why  do you need our justification?

Unless you are selling them, then I get it. Otherwise, why raise the point? Those who want to explore will explore. I don't see anyone of us on here, who've spoken for or against RC's, changing people's drug taking decisions. - I don't even like MDMA, and consider that an RC, that's me, and believe me, I have enough of a problem with the tried and true drugs, so there's no need in convincing me. I'm sure some of them are the bees knees!

So enjoy yourself!

Don't let us stop you!

peace

jagfug
how can you even classify mdma as a research chemical? ???
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: aussiepp on April 08, 2013, 11:58 am
I'm not a fan of RC's.
I did a couple of RC stimulants and the crash was horrendous.
The only RC's I'd be willing to dabble in is the very occasional NBOMe's
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: Twelve_Pickles on April 08, 2013, 12:16 pm
Misinformation, bad marketing, Poor education & negative personal experience usually KMF.
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: Limetless on April 08, 2013, 12:18 pm
Coz they have no balls.
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: kmfkewm on April 08, 2013, 07:27 pm
first off jagfag I have absolutley no financial interest in research chemicals at all, so sorry for asking a fucking question that also intended to let people know that research chemicals from the 80s and 90s are not nearly as dangerous or trashy as some seem to think they are. Have there ever even been reported ODs from half of them? I think some kids died from 2c-e after sniffing fuck tons of it. no known deaths from 2c-b. A handful of deaths on 2c-t-7. I mean these drugs are not researched, but if you need to get FDA approval on a drug before you feel safe taking it then you really shouldn't be using any illegal drugs without a prescription.
This is not to promote a lack of safety and respect with these drugs, but the thought that there are people out there worried about overdosing on 2c-i taken at a half sensible dose makes me feel like letting people know that their fears are unfounded.

I guess I am just exceptional in having tried 2c-i, 2c-e, 2c-b, 5-meo-amt, 5-meo-dipt, 5-meo-dmt, 2c-t-2, 2c-t-21, 4-aco-mipt and 4-aco-dmt with only having had a bad trip on 4-aco-mipt after recklessly taking way too much of it. The only research chemical I really regret trying is mephedrone, and having come from the RC scene before legals high trash like MDPV, and seeing people writing all research chemicals off as unsafe because of these drugs, I just felt like pointing out peoples fears are largely unfounded.

that said I can see the attitude here is fuck everything that is not LSD or MDMA, so I guess all I can say  is have fun doing whatever the fuck you want sucks that you are close minded to the wide world of psychedelics because of LEGAL COKE and LEGAL WEED and some 15 year old sniffing fifty doses of 2c-e at once and killing himself.
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: Limetless on April 08, 2013, 07:40 pm
The problem is they aren't mass marketable. People don't really want choice, they want what their mate Ted is doing.
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: astor on April 08, 2013, 07:44 pm
Research chemicals are exactly what their name implies. These substances usually have not ran through the fda procedures that would deem them effective and safe for use by the general public.

You do realize that we're comparing RCs to other illegal drugs, which have also been rejected by government agencies as being unsafe, so that can't be the reason why drug users prefer to the "traditional" or mainstream psychedelics, like LSD and psilocybin.

For me personally, I find that the "traditional" psychedelics provider a richer experience than something like 2C-I or 2C-B. I don't know. I prefer the tryptamines over the phenethylamines in general. Among them, 4-AcO-DMT and 5-MeO-MIPT are fine chemicals, but I'd still take LSD or psilocybin any day over the RCs.
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: valakki on April 08, 2013, 09:43 pm
Easy.
Tried and tested by the masses. There is a reason these drugs became classic. They are the best. They have been around and we know the risks. With research chemicals you are taking a chance. You could have allergy or other kind of bad reaction and your brain chemistry could get permanently altered.
I learned my lesson getting tinnitus from 4-fa. Its an ear ringing caused by the brain and not by the ears. Lasted for a year after  heavy use.
Something, no one knows what, was "altered and fucked up" for a year.  No one knows the reason for this tinnitus. There is no medical help for it. The doctors cant help.
so my conclusion was: be fucking careful!
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: jagfug on April 08, 2013, 11:30 pm
first off jagfag I have absolutley no financial interest in research chemicals at all, so sorry for asking a fucking question that also intended to let people know that research chemicals from the 80s and 90s are not nearly as dangerous or trashy as some seem to think they are. Have there ever even been reported ODs from half of them? I think some kids died from 2c-e after sniffing fuck tons of it. no known deaths from 2c-b. A handful of deaths on 2c-t-7. I mean these drugs are not researched, but if you need to get FDA approval on a drug before you feel safe taking it then you really shouldn't be using any illegal drugs without a prescription.
This is not to promote a lack of safety and respect with these drugs, but the thought that there are people out there worried about overdosing on 2c-i taken at a half sensible dose makes me feel like letting people know that their fears are unfounded.

I guess I am just exceptional in having tried 2c-i, 2c-e, 2c-b, 5-meo-amt, 5-meo-dipt, 5-meo-dmt, 2c-t-2, 2c-t-21, 4-aco-mipt and 4-aco-dmt with only having had a bad trip on 4-aco-mipt after recklessly taking way too much of it. The only research chemical I really regret trying is mephedrone, and having come from the RC scene before legals high trash like MDPV, and seeing people writing all research chemicals off as unsafe because of these drugs, I just felt like pointing out peoples fears are largely unfounded.

that said I can see the attitude here is fuck everything that is not LSD or MDMA, so I guess all I can say  is have fun doing whatever the fuck you want sucks that you are close minded to the wide world of psychedelics because of LEGAL COKE and LEGAL WEED and some 15 year old sniffing fifty doses of 2c-e at once and killing himself.
No need to take it personally. I simply gave you my opinion. That's the way I look at them. Closed minded? Sure I guess you could say that. I was more or less saying, who cares what other people think. If you like them, do them!

I'm an old fuck, so I guess I stick with tried and true things. I have nothing against someone who chooses to do RC's . That's the main idea behind Silk Road. Do what you want, no judgments here!

Sorry if you took what I wrote the wrong way, I was basically giving you the "old guy' take on it, and just giving a little advice, the main point of which is, Fuck what other people think!

I spent too much of my life worrying about that. No hard feelings.

Enjoy!

Peace

jagfug
Title: Re: why are so many people here biased against non-mainstream drugs?
Post by: Ben on April 09, 2013, 12:32 am
Research chemicals are exactly what their name implies. These substances usually have not ran through the fda procedures that would deem them effective and safe for use by the general public.

You do realize that we're comparing RCs to other illegal drugs, which have also been rejected by government agencies as being unsafe, so that can't be the reason why drug users prefer to the "traditional" or mainstream psychedelics, like LSD and psilocybin.

One difference is between RC and and most traditional illegal drugs is that those other drugs have not been allowed because, usually, safer alternatives exist. For example, you cannot be prescribed heroin, but you can be prescribed morphine. Morphine itself is still an illegal drug if you posses or trade it without a prescription or license, but it is an approved substance to use for certain medical conditions.

With marihuana it is a bit more complicated. As i understand in the US some states allow medical use of marihuana, which is in itself odd because it is a plant, not a single substance. Licensing THC would actually be easier to do in most jurisdictions, as a prescription only, scheduled medication.

The issue with RC in general is that they have not been approved nor banned for the treatment of any ailment, nor declared safe. Their practical use in patients has simply not be tested properly at all. These substances are THC and LSD analogues, but what their side effects are has not been properly evaluated. You could, for example, get a chemical that has been proven to activate the cannabinoid receptors very well, but without any further study into the dangers of its metabolites and such.

With that i'm not saying you should not take RC's  under any circumstance - abundant anecdotal evidence of safety can certainly have merit. That evidence had to be gathered though, so early adopters of RC's do put themselves at risk.