When are research chems no longer considered research chems?

[fatmanstan]

Hey, I was just curious, what does it take for a chemical to leave the bounds of research chemical? I mean, LSD was once a research chemical, but no one would consider it one nowadays. Is it simply a case of long periods of existance and understanding of effects?

Some of the more popular "research" phens and tryps have now been around for a few years, and used by many many people. At what point would the term "research" be dropped?

[no0b]

when there is a prevention and enforcement initiative..
when displayed physical, physcoligical, cognitive and neurotoxic evidence is available..
when there becomes an addiction potential..

[Abrad]

Originally Posted by no0b

when there becomes an addiction potential..

Ther are many drugs with no addiction potential that are not regarded as RCs. SWIM would regard any drug with a shrt history of use in humans and has not become widely available as an RC.

[no0b]

i'm only speaking in terms of a government decision..
mdma has no addiction potential but what happened? do some research bub and find out how that one got scheduled in the united states

[fatmanstan]

Were there really prevention and enforcement initiatives in place when lsd, mescaline and psilocybin were available from chemical supply houses? And, ignoring mesc and psi because of a long history of human use, were the physical, psychological, cognitive and neurotoxic effects of LSD really understood when it was available? Was extensive testing really performed before the public got ahold of it?

On related note, does anyone know of any toxicity (LD50) or bodily distribution (radioactive tagging) studies done on, say, the 2C compounds? Or really any officially sanctioned testing at all?

[no0b]

first off, let's define the word research-chemical
the term research-chemical is often thought to be, yes, a hallucinogenic drug, but that of which was synthesized in the late 80's to early 90's by alexander shulgin
-- now, having said that, i'm sure lsd would have fallen right into an rc category, had the term been around during that time-- but it wasn't. so categorizing plays different roles during a specific time era.. when you're comparing the two (rc's and lsd) in regards to recreational usage, what drug would u say was more widely available and easier accessed?

lsd was very public, and until a phen or tryp obtains such popularity, it's going to stay in it's very own category, as an rc.

[no0b]

the first reply was only in regards to government response, which is where i thought u were trying to get at.. but now i see that u are just trying to find a perceptive category for future reference

[dclacomb]

Well the thing is, "research chemical" isn't a very descriptive term. It gives no clue as to the structure, effects, or duration of the drug, just that it hasn't been around very long. According to wikipedia, the term was first coined by LE to describe fentanyl derivatives being sold on the black market as heroin. Any category that opioids and tryps & phens can fit into is a non-category. I really wish people would stop using the term all together.

[fatal]

Any chemical could technically be a "research chemical"if research was being done on it. However as far as we are speaking, it seems that an experimental psychedelic would stop being a research chemical when it becomes commonplace or a controlled substance.

[fatal]

Originally Posted by no0b

first off, let's define the word research-chemical
the term research-chemical is often thought to be, yes, a hallucinogenic drug, but that of which was synthesized in the late 80's to early 90's by alexander shulgin
-- now, having said that, i'm sure lsd would have fallen right into an rc category, had the term been around during that time-- but it wasn't. so categorizing plays different roles during a specific time era.. when you're comparing the two (rc's and lsd) in regards to recreational usage, what drug would u say was more widely available and easier accessed?

lsd was very public, and until a phen or tryp obtains such popularity, it's going to stay in it's very own category, as an rc.

So would you consider say 2C-I a research chemical since it has gained a high level of popularity in the uk? or any number of substances that are sold in smartshops in the nederlands? is this country specific? just bringing these points to light so they may be considered... in some countries people likely still refer to 2C-T-7 as a research chemical... which it honestly is because of its fairly unresearched biochemistry... its mechanism of death in overdose is still vague as far as can be seen... but it is considered also a schedule I controlled substance in the usa and several other countries whos nomenclature for controlled drugs is different(ie class A in the UK)

[no0b]

that's something i should have definitely taken into consideration..
i'm assuming it would have to hit global popularity, especially in the united states.. i think it's safe to say that there's maybe a probability that 1 out of every 20 people here in the states that might know what a research chemical even is, much less anyone even hearing about what crystals of 2c-i or dmt can do. no one knows about it. research chemicals are research chemicals because there aren't enuf responsible people to just let rc's to be readily, openly available to just anyone. there was never such a liability aspect like the kind rc's hold within any other drug.. that's why u see online vendors keeping it under the table, preserving the fragility of such compounds to keep them all the more precious..

as for a matter of scheduling, all it's going to take is for some idiot to rail 50mg of 2c-e, killing himself and ultimately labeling 2c-e as one of the 'new evil killers in amerika'
- that's all it took for 2ct-7 right? .. on an entirely different note, salvia is on the same path (over here atleast)--> where the 'dangers' out-weigh the benefits of recreational fun

[snapper]

You gotta call them something. Otherwise they would just be drugs, which is even more vague. They are all (including LSD and MDMA) still in the process of being researched, but the term is a useful catch all for all of shulgin's little molecular children and any offshoots therof. It is a colloquialism, and not really a specific descriptive term, but it has worked in the language so far, so there is no point in changing it.
Taking the term literally would be like having stones thrown at you while you smoke pot. Why the hell do people use the term stoned for getting high on pot, anyways ?!
Same reason.

Snapper

[Nagognog2]

I would say that a chemical is no longer a research chemical once the government outlaws it into Schedule I. Once it is Schedule I, like MDMA, all research stops. Or is supposed to.

[fatal]

true but one can acquire special licensing to legally research on schedule I compounds. shulgin had one of these before they took it away.

[fatmanstan]

Hey, some good replies here, thanks alot. Perhaps I should clarify some things a little more. Now, it's relatively well understood that, say, pure LSD is extremely "safe", at least in a physiological sense. (ie, if you take it, your heart won't explode or your lungs won't fill up with fluid). Was significant testing and research performed at Sandoz before it was released to the public (well, it wasn't really released to the public, but hopefully you get the idea), or was it adopted by the counter-culture before these effects were understood, and has since gained a reputation of being not-so-physically-harmful simply by the fact that the millions of people have taken it are generally still around and for the most part healthy?

That said, I don't believe that the Shulgins have really done much in the way of LD50s or binding studies or mechanics of action. It's been a while since I've looked at pik and tik, but I believe the main method of testing was to ingest a low dose of a new substance and see what happens. Now, chemicals like 2c-i and amt have been around for a few years and have made their way into the bodies of many "researchers", many of whom seem relatively unaffected, physically, in the long run. Is time needed before their co-efficient of safety can be determined, or extensive testing?

Hypothetically, if one was to procure such "research chemicals" and hold on to them until their safety can be somewhat determined, what would be the go-ahead flag that it was all-clear and safe to proceed? Safe is a relative term, and I am aware that no chemical can be truely considered safe, so I don't need that repeat to me countless times.

Has there been, or is there currently any serious testing being performed on any of these chemicals, or is that not really a priority for the majority of "legitamite" researchers? Does a chemical receive this type of scrutiny after it reaches a certain popularity among the general public, such as methamphetamine, or does someone have to just decide to go ahead and methodically dope rats or similar to determine these actions?

Thanks again.

[Richard_smoker]

Hey, I was just curious, what does it take for a chemical to leave the bounds of research chemical? I mean, LSD was once a research chemical, but no one would consider it one nowadays. Is it simply a case of long periods of existance and understanding of effects?

Some of the more popular "research" phens and tryps have now been around for a few years, and used by many many people. At what point would the term "research" be dropped?

Is this true? I was under the impression that LSD never stopped being a research chemical.

I have read plenty of articles on LSD and other class I drugs being researched. Lots of details about effects of Class I's in mice, right? or did I just invent those memories?? Do these reports all come from other countries outside the US?

If so, then how did GHB get recent approval for treatment of narcolepsy? It was a class I drug before the FDA approved it for use in treating narcolepsy...

I was also under the impression that researchers could submit proposals to try almost anything if the reasoning and risk/benefit ratios were acceptable... Then, with FDA approval, they could conduct their trials. I thought that there were psychiatrists who were currently involved in limited clinical application trials with MDMA and PTSD, rape victims, and grieving disorder. Are these trials illegal??

Reputation Comments on this post:

great point as always, way to add to my store of knowledge

[treefingers49]

I believe starting sometime in the late 90's, the legalities regarding research with schedule I compounds were loosened a bit, and there are a number of research projects going on at the moment. Rick Strassman MD performed experiments with DMT and proceeded to write a book about it. I highly recommend it. It contains results and experiences with both the experiments and the preceeding quagmire of legal and administrative difficulties he endured in order to conduct them.

[radiometer]

As a name attached to obscure psychedelics, I think the term "research chemical" traces back to the vendors who first started selling these compounds on the internet, in an attempt to pretend they weren't selling drugs.

[Nagognog2]

Yes MDMA is back in clinical trials - probably under armed guards with German Shepards and watchtowers. And they are likely actually using methamphetamine on these poor slobs coming back from Iraq with their psyches in shreds. They did use meth in their tests to prove M causes brain damage... Who knows?

However, in the last analysis, this whole debate is moot. Whether we/they call 'em RC's, or analogues, or pickled beets. We know what they are and what the government would like to do: Outlaw everything but booze and cigarettes. And they are looking for every possible provocation to do just this.

[snapper]

Maybe if we all called them pickled beets (PBs) it might throw off LE for a while ? A 'pickled beet' vendor sounds very innocuous.
However, I hate pickled beets !

Snapper

[fatal]

this is clearly the most accurate response...

Originally Posted by radiometer

As a name attached to obscure psychedelics, I think the term "research chemical" traces back to the vendors who first started selling these compounds on the internet, in an attempt to pretend they weren't selling drugs.

[Richard_smoker]

yeah, CLEARLY!

if you read the first post, Radio wasn't even answering the original question, he was clarifying the question for people (like me) who interpreted it the wrong way. So yes, for ME it was CLEARLY the most accurate way of helping me understand the question.

I think it's obvious that we all had some valid input. The original question said when do research chemicals lose the designation of being research chemicals. Radiometer was just exercising something that he's good at--clarifying information for people of different perspectives.

just because YOU might think that 'research chemicals' is just another word for 'legal drugs' doesn't mean that the literal translation (chemicals used in research) of the question wasn't valid food for thought as well. (btw, i'm not accusing you of thinking that, so don't get mad)

In fact, I was quite intrigued by the question of whether or not class I substances actually can be used in research. Although I assumed that such US research was being conducted 'legally,' I wasn't really sure if my assumption was correct or not. In fact, I started to think maybe those psychiatrist/psychologists might be breaking the laws to press on with something they believed in--not unlike Leonardo DaVinci and other early scientists.

Thanks to nagognagogogogog, I now know the answer to my question.

I know the irony in posting a reply to your statement that was unnecessarily redunt, but I just want people to consider other possibilities before you go declaring what ideas are relevant. (not you alfa ) Many people responded and read reponses to this question out of curiosity pertaining to Shulgan's Lists, but there may be others who wanted to know about actual research. That's all. This isn't a flame. I'm sorry if I look irritated, it's just that someone in this community could become the NEXT Shulgin (or possibly play a role in some convincing research that could help lead to expanded psychoactive drug priveleges in the US--like Ibogaine for addiction, MJ for medicine, MDMA for trauma, etc. etc.), and the source of their social support structure and many clarifying ideas could very well be this site. It doesn't take much reading to see just how many members share a great deal of their time contributing extraordinarily insightful, intelligent, intuitive, patient, and mature responses and reactions to every member's questions.

Limiting our conversations solely to subjects that imply that we are only interested in stuffing money into the pockets of the blatant underground gray market for drugs-that-haven't-been-illegalized-yet, self-experimentation, and beating around the bush about interest in sources and availability of KNOWN psychedelics might drive off your next Shulgin when she/he realizes that people aren't as interested in the actual blending of knowlege on science, sociology, history, medicine, law and psych as he once thought that they were. I, for one, have been revitalized by the collective input and cross-talk of this group. I appreciate alfa and the other mods for the elusive 'Sources Forum' because for me it served as a carrot-on-a-string.... until one day I woke up and realized what we have here WITHOUT even being 'gold' or 'platinum' members...

I know I just totally strayed off the topic, but this is something I feel strongly about and I hope that alfa, mods, and everyone else who cares will get this message and know that what you all have done is essentially change my perspectives on many things I used to dismiss or be ashamed about. If it weren't for the initial pursuit of 'gold,' I would never have taken the time to learn the part that really matters.

--->edit: sorry for the tone of this post. I was out of line and sorry if i offended others. I think we all should have the right to believe and to insert our own opinons whenever we feel the need. I just demonstrated something akin to pushing my own ideas onto others. for that I am sorry. I will delete the whole damn thing if it will please the group. like i said, i've learned a lot from the posters on this board. I'm exercising one of those things by admitting I was wrong. and sorry. and somewhat off-topic. ok, VERY off-topic.

[fatmanstan]

I like the pickled beets thing, priceless.

I guess more than anything, I was wondering when a chemical would lose the "warning: not intended for human consumption" designation than the "research chemical" designation. Believe me, I am well aware of the risks involved with drug use, whether it be legal, prescription or made-in-the-sink Class 1. I guess I should have been more clear with my original post. And don't worry Richard and others, no offense taken.

On a side note, I actually had a chance to have some correspondence with Dr. Strassman via email about his book a few years ago. He is a very stand-up guy, although he was disappointed by the lack of respect and support he received from others in his field, at least that was the impression I got from him.

[fatmanstan]

Pickled beets, that's great.

[nanobrain]

a research chemical stops being a research chemical when it is no longer available for research.