Idtravlr, I also heard that story on the news. I don’t recall all the details though. But that really happened.

Mistakes happen, especially when the manufacturer is getting high on the drugs while making them. The owner died from his own drug being mislabeled. The buy labeling the drugs was probably high at the time.

With things like mimosa, it looks like mimosa, smells like mimosa, tastes like mimosa, the chances of getting Bromo-Dragonfly instead of mimosa are non-existent. You might get bark form a similar tree, but the outcome is likely not going to be nearly as tragic. But with RC’s this sort of thing is easily possible; especially if the company makes more than one kind of RC and the workers are getting high off the products.

Imagine being high on Bromo-Dragonfly and working at the factory…just think about all the mistakes you could easily make. Bromo-Dragonfly is a seriously strong psychedelic.

When you pass a new law you have to also think about how it will be enforced. It would be too hard to enforce a “ban everything” law so they just plain won't do it. You’ll never see that happen.

The other problem is that it will prevent research into new drugs from being made. If such a law existed, how would pharmaceutical companies work on the next new cure for depression if such a law existed? Testing could not be done on people until the drug was made legal. Right? That would require a new law to get passed to legalize your new anti-depressant. It would be a nightmare for the FDA and put a lot of honest drug research companies out of business.

Oh, I'm sure the FDA and big pharma could come to an agreement ($$$).



Anyway, link to that tragic RC mixup here. Note how there wasn't even a warning on Erowid until a week after the first US death, and that victims purchased the chemical from different companies.

No, such a law is not likely to get drafted or implemented, at least not at this point. Essentially, the shortened version of what would happen is, imo, assuming this were made into law, someone would challenge the law, it would wind up getting written up as a request for the Supreme Court to hear it, most likely after snaking its way through a lower court or three, the supreme court would most probably take a look at it (or at least the clerks would) and it would be handed back down to a lower court stating that the law is over-broad and essentially limits personal freedoms. Because there would no doubt be exceptions made for alcohol and tobacco (both of which alter consciousness) the law would not be able to hold any water initially or get off the ground due to the clear hypocrisy. I know that the hypocrisy is there already, but it's much easier, at least legally, to maintain ass-backwards legislation than create new legislation, especially with a public that is becoming increasingly more informed (however slowly it may be).

The not for human consumption disclaimer may appear flimsy, but I'd point you to BBB's issues to highlight how it works. We live in a society where intent is seen as a large part of determining the criminal nature of an act. If the manufacture/distributor has clear statements which indicate that it intends these compounds to be used for fertilizer, dye, or chemistry projects/analysis then they've covered their asses. If you were to remove the "not for human consumption" label from say, SH's mhrb, go up to officer Mcgillicutty and say, "Hey porker, I'm gonna go snack on this mhrb" he would have sufficient evidence that you were possessing a scheduled substance (in plant form, just like they charged BBB) with the intent to ingest it and would most likely be able to prosecute you. The legal system is screwy and nuanced as hell, both of these responses of mine are incredible shallow and blunt, but I'm just trying to give a sense of what I believe is/would be going on.

The risk of introducing new legislation and having it backfire against the CSA and other similar laws is most likely too great for something like this to be seriously considered, at least at the present time. For an example of legal issues "domino effecting" each other (especially at the supreme court level) I would say look at the battle that is now being fought over Chicago's hand gun ban as a result of DC's hand gun ban being repealed, and look at what precipitated that...

peace
SB

Ron the guy who overdosed did own the company but he was not making these compounds. What happened was the chinese distributor, thought that 2C-B fly was actually Bromo-dragonfly. Thus the wrong product was made and sent to the distributor mislabeled. Although these are very similar structures (only differing by aromaticity and an alpha methyl) still the dose differences are huge. Dragonfly is active at 500uG whereas 2c-b fly is active at 10 mg. Obviously this was a serious saddening mistake but it is a rare occurrence. One should test these compounds, one can use at least Marquis reagent test (sulfuric acid with a few drops of formaldehyde) to distinguish many of these compounds at least by class. This would have saved those peoples lives.

One could get mimosa with a synthetic substance added. In fact this is beginning to become common with many other "herbal" preparations including kratom containing synthetic opioids or herbal aphrodisiacs containing synthetic viagra analogues. Herbal weihgt loss pills were found to contain synthetic stimulants. These are well made preparations and you would never know unless you tested them with a GC. Soon they could put 5-methyl-DMT into any root bark and sell it.... who knows but they easily could.... and have done similar things...

In the US and through-out much of Europe (The EU) they have adopted "analogue acts" they differ slightly but have much similarities. The basis is to prevent the marketing of a slightly modified (analogue) recreational drugs. In the 70's and 80's many synthetic fentynal and demoral analogues kept appearing. When the authorities would schedule one the chemists would just add a methyl to this position and it would be legal. So the authorities decided to create the analogue act.

The specifics can be read else where however this is about as far as they can go with the analogue laws with-out causing a serious economic disaster for pharmaceutical and scientific researchers. Furthermore none of these laws are effective at deterring use although they are well aware of this fact.

To be an analogue the new compound has to be both structurally similar AND have similar subjective effects as a schedule I or II drug (in the US) AND/OR is being marketed as such. That first AND had to be fought for in court cases and the DEA/legislature conveniently left it out when passing the bill....but not the initial draft.... however the courts have said it is a given that the agent fulfill the similarity in structure and effects criteria to meet the legal description of an analogue. The fact that the DEA recognizes this ruling is that JWH are not considered illegal by them as they are structural distinct even though they induce THC like effects.

Note that not only was the RC mislabeled, but it is also suspected to have been tainted by manufacturing impurities. Dunno if they contributed to the deaths, but it makes you wonder about the standards of production in these labs.

I have tested many RCs from several places via GC/MS. I was surprised to find that most are of an incredibly high purity better 99%+. Also if one finds a reliable source they can (but still shouldn't assume) they can count on them for quality products. Still test with a reagent test. There were issues in the past but recently the products from several places are high quality and correctly labeled. The place with the Br-Drag tended to have issues with their products. Never the less the bromo-dragon fly was reported to be greater than 95% purity, which is as good as buying it from a chemical vendor like sigma/aldrich in many cases.

The impurities were low, it was the fact that they were taking 40 doses of Br-Dragonfly instead of one dose of 2C-B fly that caused the overdoses and deaths.

Street drugs are far more contaminated than RCs and there is an equal if not greater risk with street chemicals. I am not saying that everyone should do RC's you have to be very careful and safe when using these as many are novel chemicals. However if you follow some simple rules you can minimize most of the risk. If your just looking for some recreational party substances you can go wild on you should prob stay away but if you are interested in studying psychopharmacology then these are great tools.

Well, bufoman, what percentage of vendors and products do you think you've analyzed? Maybe 3%? Maybe 5%? Do you really think your personal tests are really a good source for making these kind of bold claims about the RC industry as a whole? It seems to me you are pushing the belief that RC's are safe pretty strongly. You don't have some sort of agenda or vested interest in the RC industry do you?

As far as street drugs, I was gonna comment on this earlier but chose to ignore it. Now that you've brought it up again, I will address it. In this case, the "street drug" we should be comparing to is cannabis. There is no way these RC's in these fake weed products are safer than cannabis purchased wherever. Tales of laced weed are usually not true, it just doesn't make logical or economical sense in most cases. In this case, it is undeniable that cannabis is unquestionably safer than any of these RC's being marketed as substitutes. As to the larger spectrum of RC's, I can't comment. I don't use synths. I don't judge people who do, I just choose not to put such things in my body (and yes Aoutiv, I am aware acid is a synthetic, that's why I don't eat it). However, given that these substances have no history of human use and generally very little is known as to their potential side effects, especially in the long term, I would be very hesitant to believe anyone saying these chemicals are "safe". I understand RC is a nomenclatural distinction dealing with our understanding of the compound and does not actually reflect the potential harm that may or may not be caused, but my point is just that; we don't know enough to call these things safe. There's not much else to say, unknowns aren't necessarily bad, they're just unknowns, meaning statements regarding their safety should be treated with a large dose of skepticism, if they were shown to be safe through rigorous testing and trials and whatnot, they'd probably be moved out of the RC distinction just like LSD and MDMA...

just my $.02 on this issue

peace
SB

Having the equipment necessary to test for purity does change the situation a bit. And I concede that one is probably safer ingesting a properly measured sample of RC from a 'trusted' vendor than a random black market 'ecstasy' pill.

Snozzle, the reason that self-extracted mescaline or DMT will be safer than an RC is not because one is natural and the other synthetic, but rather because of all the uncontrolled variables from creation to ingestion. LSD is synthetic and relatively safe, arsenic is natural and relatively deadly.

I wasn't even getting into this, my choice to abstain from synthetics has nothing to do with their health effects and is based solely on my body's reaction to the few synthetic substances I have ingested. Thanks for further clarifying some salient points though.

It's funny. I was just having this conversation with a new work buddy last night. I agree. It is impossible to perfectly measure the amount of the molecule in any plant. Plants will always be a source of free psychedelics, but I would prefer synthetics just so that I know the exact quantity of a substance that I'm taking. Too bad making synthetics will land you in prison.

Extracted substances are just as useful.

Extracted substances can still be quantified after sufficient purification, otherwise people wouldn't be able to reliably dose 50mg of spice or whatever.

Good conversation in this thread. Very respectful and informative.

I should have said "Extracted substances are just as useful as synthetics." We're in complete agreement.

Hahaha I have no vested interest in the RC industry I can assure you. I just can't stand when people bash it based on rumors or those who think natural products as safer than synthetics. As I have always said of course these chemicals can be dangerous, many are novel and have not been tested in humans. However all I am saying is that if used responsibly they are no more dangerous than most other things and they tend to be what they are marketed as.

Additionally in my experience there are only a few major RC vendors. I have analysized compounds from several of them in addition plenty of work has been published in the journal of forensic chemistry and similar journals showing that these products tend to be what they are marketed as and are pure. That is all I am saying, or course there are exceptions and I do not know of every single vendor in the world. However I feel it is safer than buying street drugs in general not just marijuana.

Cannabis is an exceptionally safe substance, I was never claiming that any RCs were as safe as cannabis. Cannabis or even pure THC is one of the safest intoxicants on earth without a doubt. I am talking about RCs in general. Furthermore K2 is not an RC, as it is not a pure compound and one is buying a mixture of substances without knowing the ingredients (as they are not listed). Ingesting a sample of pure JWH of a known dose is far different from ingesting K2.

That's funny. I actually remember learning about this very thing in 7th grade health class. I actually had a really cool health teacher, and he had a really honest and straight forward approach in his "Drugs" module. In fact, it was in his very classroom that I picked up the book "Chocolate to Morphine" and first learned of the great DMT. I had to search for another 15 to 20 years before I would actually find it however. Which is probably not a bad thing...

Sorry to derail, but I had to share that story.

Peace,
-idt

.
.
My question is, where is the mod that locked up and booted my 4-aco-dmt thread, eh?


eh?

The pack I bought has the ingredients listed on it. But think about this people here are smoking crap from their kitchen chemistry set and many arent doing too good a job at purification.

Vovin:
Did it have the JWH-018 listed or just the "inert" plant material. In my experience with spice products they listed the so called ingredients but not the true active componenets which was found to be one of several synthetic cannabinoids or a mixture of them. Interestingly some actually contained endocannabinoid oleamide. Not sure why as it is not very active on its own, but maybe it potentiates cannabinoids. WHen I looked on BBB website they advertised K2 and did not list the active components but just the plants. What I was referring to was the fact that the active component is not listed, thus it is different than taking a known amount of a pure substance.

If bufoman is right about that, that's a real shame. They should list all the ingredients, especially if they are adding research chemicals to it. That's like lacing your pot with PCP and not telling you about it. That is just plain wrong, and pisses me off.

I know for a fact that the spice products did not list the added synthetics. In addition as I stated several so called herbal products have been found to contain synthetics that were not listed in the ingredients this includes kratom products containing demethyltramadol, herbal aphrodisiacs containing viagra analogues, and herbal weight loss pills containing synthetic stimulants. This is a growing trend. Furthermore there are many "bath salt" products which are meant to be cocaine like powders which do not list the active contents but have been found to have stimulants. In addition it seems that the manufacturers rotate the active ingredients likely to stay a head of the authorities or to confuse or make complicate legal matters.

it is one thing to experiment with novel chemicals when one knows what and how much they are taking it is another to have no idea. I just feel bad for the poor people who were not aware that the products contained synthetic agents at all.