Health - Which RC's are the "safest"? Which are the most dangerous?

[fnord]

Which RC's would you consider being the safest/most dangerous? How did you make this descion? is it the known safety of related compounds or from extensive human use?

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good thought provoking question

[polidelaiko]

I consider dangerous RC's which don't have a big amplitude in their dosage range, or a very high dose/response curve... Not that they are bad, but to be approached with caution.. and a scale!
There's something of mephedrone that seems very fishy to me, even if my cat hasn't tried it (yet), guess it was the pics of the blue knees.

[EyesOfTheWorld]

SWIM thinks the 2C-XXXXX family, when pure from a good source and used in a measured dose, is very safe.
He thinks 5-MeO-AMT is pure poison no matter how pure.

[Shampoo]

Well, to begin lets take a look at which RCs have been the cause of documented deaths. Not to say that this automatically renders them "dangerous" but it is a worthwhile starting point for discussion.

2C-T-7 (2,5-Dimethoxy-4-n-propylthiophenethylamine): More than one death has been determined as caused by 2C-T-7, though they have all involved large insufflated doses or concomitant ingestion with MDMA or other amphetamines. Very steep dose response curve, may have MAOI properties (not confirmed).

2C-T-21 (4-(2-fluoroethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine): At least one death has been associated with this drug, involving a massive overdose of a quadraplegic 22 year old male who stuck his tongue in a vial, consuming an unknown large amount of the drug. Effects involved a 108f temp, seizures, coma, and eventual death.

BromoDragonFLY (bdFLY, Bromo-benzodifuranyl-isopropylamine): At least three deaths have been reported and substantiated as well as numerous hospitalizations and and medical abnormalities. Proven to have significant vasoconstrictive properties, resulting in necessary amputation. May have vastly different effects orally and through intraperitoneal routes. Stereoisomers, one of which is more potent than the other. Extremely potent.

5-MeO-DiPT (5-Methoxy-diisopropyltryptamine): One death has been associated with this chemical and substantiated by a peer-reviews forensics journal. A 100mg rectal dose resulted in death within hours. Somewhat steep dose response curve, side-effects increase more rapidly than primary effects.

5-MeO-AMT (5-methoxy-α-methyltryptamine): At least one death has been associated with this drug. Multiple reports of seizures. Very steep dose/response curve, highly potent. Two different isomers, one of which is more potent and possibly (though not substantiated) less toxic.


So, we have a few marked characteristics that seem to be present in chemicals which have deaths, injuries, or hospitalizations associated with them:

Potency: With increased potency comes the need for increased accuracy. Most RC consumers do not have scales which are accurate beyond one milligram. Some users of the more popular and accessible chemicals (like 2C-T-7 once was) dont have any scales at all and may "eyeball" their dose or recieve unknown dosages in marked pills filled with excipients or other chemicals. Taking highly potent chemicals without highly accurate measurement is irresponsible and may result in unexpected consequences such as death. Does that make highly potent chemicals "dangerous"? Not necessarily, but without controlled measurement, yes.

Dose/Response Curve: Chemicals which have extermely steep dose/response curves are highly prone to overdose, especially if they are also potent and require accurate measurement in the milligram or submilligram range. 2C-T-7 for becomes dangerous very quickly above 25-30mg. Does that make chemicals with a steep dose/response curve "dangerous"? Not necessarily, but without controlled measurement, yes.

Stereoisomer Variance: When one stereoisomer of a chemical is more active than the other, dosages of the two vary. Most of the BromoDragonFLY distributed on the black/grey market has been labeled without an isomer specified. Since one isomer is more potent than the other, dosages cannot be accurately calculated without this information. 5-MeO-AMT also has stereoisomer variance which may account for the vast difference between users' experiences. Again, does this make chemicals with stereoisomer variance "dangerous"? Not necessarily, but without the information of which isomer you have in your posession and which isomer is more active and to what degree, yes.

Route of Administration: Certain chemicals may be significantly more bioavailable by other routes, and if this is not taken into account, users may find themselves in a much more active place than they planned. 2C-T-7 is relatively safe orally at 30mg, however 30mg insufflated has resulted in at least one death. The one death associated with 5-MeO-MiPT may be associated with the rectal route of administration. Knowing bioavailability by route is essential for anyone wishing to explore chemicals outside of their known oral dose range.

Additional considerations: Toxic/neurotoxic metabolites, genetic polymorphisms, drug-drug interactions, drug-food interactions

So, aside from inherint neurotoxicity, no RCs seem really "dangerous" if the proper measurement and information regarding the chemical, its isomer position, potency, interactions and exact dose range are available.

What are some other chemicals which have not necessarily caused deaths but have caused consistent adverse reactions?

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Excellent parsing of the potentially dangerous properties of different groups of research chemicals.
	well written
	well thought out, and well written. Couldnt have said it better myself.
	Excellent analysis of the paths of potential harm and means with which one could eliminate that potential
	Very informative. Harm reduction

[cra$h]

isn't that why they're called RC's? We're not sure of the effects both long and short totally.

[Desertfox]

Originally Posted by Shampoo

BromoDragonFLY (bdFLY, Bromo-benzodifuranyl-isopropylamine): At least three deaths have been reported and substantiated as well as numerous hospitalizations and and medical abnormalities. Proven to have significant vasoconstrictive properties, resulting in necessary amputation. May have vastly different effects orally and through intraperitoneal routes. Stereoisomers, one of which is more potent than the other. Extremely potent.

Where did swiy read this info? SWIM was interested in this chemical but after reading that, it sounds like something SWIM should stay away from. 2c-B-Fly seems much more intriguing anyways.

[Shampoo]

Originally Posted by Desertfox

Where did swiy read this info? SWIM was interested in this chemical but after reading that, it sounds like something SWIM should stay away from. 2c-B-Fly seems much more intriguing anyways.

First of all, SWIM did not read or write this, I did. Me, Shampoo, not someone else. Please refrain from using SWIM/SWIY in unnecessary contexts, it makes it seem trivial and silly.

The deaths as well as the amputation (of multiple fingers) have been published in newspapers and forensic journals. I believe they are posted somewhere here, try looking in the file archive or using the search engine.

2C-B-FLY seems to have a much higher safety profile than the other fly compounds, though still pretty untested waters in comparison to its parent compound; tread cautiously.




In terms of the "safest" compounds, I am not sure where to begin compiling a list but here are some attributes worth looking for:

Drugs with a lower efficacy will have dose/response curves that are less steep. This does not make them necessarily less potent. A less steep dose/response relationship means that more "elbow room" exists in dosing (so one or two extra milligrams wont turn a ++ into a ++++).

Additionally, though more potent chemicals may be "safer" due to the requirement of lower dosages, this only applies if the chemical under question has potentially toxic or harmful metabolites. The problem with potency is obvious: highly potent chemicals require highly accurate measurement, which most people lack access to. So in general it could be said that the "safest" chemicals are probably on the less potent side (so exclude br-dFLY and 5-MeO-AMT).

Obviously, drugs which have a low side-effect profile are generally "safer" than those which elicit significant side-effects along with their psychedelic activity.

A good place to start might be looking for RCs which have been taken at a vast range of doses with little increased side-effects at the high end.

Just off the top of my head, 2C-B has been used in doses from the 6-8mg range to 50+mg with no sign of serious medical complications and certainly not life threatening side effects.

What other RCs have been taken in large ranges or in extreme doses without extreme or medically significant side-effects?

[fnord]

What other RCs have been taken in large ranges or in extreme doses without extreme or medically significant side-effects?

Well grandma once snorted 500mg of 5-meo-dmt by accident,while she didint die she was unconcius for about a half hour and was blacked out for another 40 mins after that.

[polidelaiko]

What did granny think she was snorting?
Taking in consideration the active dose of 5-MeO-DMT, it doesnt make it safe, but its safer than I thought.
I read on another forum of someone who accidentaly ate 250mg of jwh-018. That´s like... how many active doses? 200-250?

[fnord]

A plate was being passed around with vicodan or coke or percocet,or maybe it was all three... i dont know it was a while ago,but ther were many snortables and a dmt bong being passed around.grandma mistook the 5-meo for something one would enjoy putting up there nose.

[RaverHippie]

DOB is reported to have similar vasoconstrictive properties as BromoDragonfly though likely to a lesser degree.

from erowid

CONTRA-INDICATIONS
DOB can be quite harmful at high doses. Significant overdoses can cause serious vasso-constriction of the extremeties...possibly resulting in nerve damange and/or gangrene. There are unconfirmed reports of two people who accidentally ingested 75mg (over 30x the regular dosage) and needed to have their legs amputated because their circulation had shut off and caused gangrene in their legs.

The use of DOB can be a problem for those with circulatory problems, heart ailments, glaucoma, hypertension, hepatic or renal disease, aneurism, or stroke history.

[davestate]

Originally Posted by Desertfox

Where did swiy read this info? SWIM was interested in this chemical but after reading that, it sounds like something SWIM should stay away from. 2c-B-Fly seems much more intriguing anyways.

Here's an erowid link
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/brom...y_death3.shtml

It was posted on here too: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65937


Some References #

1. Kållberg A.. "Drogen tog hans hand [The Drug Took Him By the Hand]". KvällsPosten. Apr 23 2008.
2. Johansson L. "Ny drog leder till dödsfall och amputationer [New drug leads to deaths and amputations]". Skånskan. Apr 22, 2008.
3. Thorlacius K, Borna C, Personne M. "Bromo-dragonfly--livsfarlig missbruksdrog [Bromo-dragon fly--life-threatening drug. Can cause tissue necrosis as demonstrated by the first described case]". Läkartidningen. 2008 Apr 16-22;105(16):1199-200.
4. Bowen JS, Davis GB, Kearney TE, Bardin J. "Diffuse vascular spasm associated with 4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine ingestion". Publication Name. JAMA. 1983 Mar 18;249(11):1477-9.

I can upload the last reference if you need, the JAMA one.