Silk Road forums
Discussion => Drug safety => Topic started by: microdotter on June 18, 2013, 04:14 pm
-
Just thought of that,
when exactly is the point when a new chemical stops being (considered) as RC and becomes just a regular drug like cocaine or LSD?
my guess is that its a combination of these factors:
- matter of time on the market
- matter of popularity
- matter of research and information about the substance
- when its outlawed
- who is the one deciding about that? (i would guess the media + the amount of users by the way they are reffering to the drug)
- where is it being sold - just in legal high shops or it hits the streets everywhere
- type of users - RC people or long time drug users that uses multiple types of normal drugs and no "legal highs"
which ones are longer considered RC? i would start with mephedrone for sure and 2C-X family (im not well familiar with many RC's aside cathinones)
What do you think?
-
I'd say the first ones to be moved from RC to actual drug would be Methylone, Mephedrone, and 25i. People in my area love Methylone, and a few friends like mephedrone. 25i has been becoming bigger as well, because people know what it is, buy it regardless just because it "fucks them up" in a psychedelic way, and its a tad cheaper than real LSD
-
Yeah, I agree. 2c family is rarely considered an RC anymore, neither is m-1, 4mec, or, mephedrone. Spice how everyone calls it is as common as smoking a cig. 5MeOMIPT, MXE, and, 25X's are still considered RC's but are becoming so popular they blend in great. I love that there are more people telling the truth because they themselves are more aware of what's going on. Almost gone are the days where people tell you it's family doses and ends up being some fucking bitter shit. Which I and a million other people wouldn't mind getting but don't lie and say it's something else for fucks sake.
Then again all drugs are RC's. A man that works for a famous generic pharmacy company works on a software where Dr's across the globe can enter data in regards to prescriptions and symptoms of their patients, meaning the research is never really finished because evolution is inevitable.
-
Hi microdotter,
It's all just terminology, although obviously some drugs have LOOONG histories, thousands of years for marijuana, coke, peyote, decades for LSD. But the RC thing seems to be a definite phenomena starting with exchange of ideas on the earliest forms of the Internet, and I won't attempt to precis here, but it's all laid out in 'Drugs 2.0 The Web Revolution That's Changing How The World Gets High', by Mike Power (Portobello Press in UK, don't know about international.) Really, really fascinating book. Bigged it up on a thread before, so won't bang on about it, but suggest you read. It predicts the future.
Take care.
-
So yeah, basically when an RC becomes very popular and accepted by the veteran drug users community it becomes a mainstream drug
@Thekla1 - yes your right, its all terminology, but it expresses interesting mindsets as i guess that never in history there was such a flow of new drugs and its very interesting to try and understand how "the market" react to new product and how some being dumped and some become "brands" Its very Similar o the products in the regular market once you think of it :)
-
That is awesome, what a privileged time to exist in.
Proves Asimov was right. Anything man can imagine can and most likely will develop into reality for man. So many movies advertising that designer drugs were the new thing, and they were out there, and peddlers were looking for your children so they could feed it to them and lead them to a wild night of debauchery. I remember as a child thinking, "hell yeah, I hope i run into them".
-
My feeling is that all drugs should continue to be researched, so should maintain a sense that they are RC's. however there should be a sub class that moves them into a category that identifies them as having solid historical information of the short and long-term effects.
Newer RC's should stay within a category that indicates there isn't enough robust data to conclusively say what the long and short term effects are. For instance mephedrone is massively popular as a substitute for MDMA, but do we really the long term effects of this RC?
-
So many movies advertising that designer drugs were the new thing, and they were out there, and peddlers were looking for your children so they could feed it to them and lead them to a wild night of debauchery. I remember as a child thinking, "hell yeah, I hope i run into them".
LOL, yeah! same here!
every drug documentary or every anti-drugs campaign i saw as a kid / teenager just made me say to myself:
"i have to try this"
"i wonder how that feels"
"come'on i don't believe that, i have to try it myself"
and so did that once i could, so basically... i think this it the way the government is advertising the drugs. imagine a world with no mention whatsoever of drugs in schools or media - who would even know they even exist? :)
-
For instance mephedrone is massively popular as a substitute for MDMA, but do we really the long term effects of this RC?
i will be one of the first to know, like in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHWc-Wfj6_I
im the one who got high :) LOL
-
I suppose the most exact point in time is the moment that something gets onto the controlled substances list in your jurisdiction.
The number of uses and negative effects may influence when that happens, but if i had to single out a sigle criterion i'd say legality of posession would be it.
-
Everyone in this thread is wrong. It is when there has been a lot of research on the compound. LSD used to be an RC. Now we have decades of research. We do not have much research on the 2C family, methylone or the nBOME family so those are still research chemicals.
-
Everyone in this thread is wrong. It is when there has been a lot of research on the compound. LSD used to be an RC. Now we have decades of research. We do not have much research on the 2C family, methylone or the nBOME family so those are still research chemicals.
Mate did you read my reply? That's pretty much what I said.
-
Everyone in this thread is wrong. It is when there has been a lot of research on the compound. LSD used to be an RC. Now we have decades of research. We do not have much research on the 2C family, methylone or the nBOME family so those are still research chemicals.
Mate did you read my reply? That's pretty much what I said.
There were so many shitty answers that I guess I kind of skipped over yours while skimming. It's all good brother.
-
Seeing these replies it makes me understand that there are few approache
Jack N Hoff - this is the "literal" approach, means it stops being RC when the research on them is done, this is acceptable. do not disrespect the answers , this is a topic that have more than one answer for sure
but i was considering also the social approach - when do the drug users community stops REFEREEING to them as RC's - guess its the popularity and acceptance by veteran users, this can happen long before any real reseach is done (see mephedrone)
and than the legal approach - once the system declares its a drug ,
very interesting, i love the drug world :)
-
Seeing these replies it makes me understand that there are few approache
Jack N Hoff - this is the "literal" approach, means it stops being RC when the research on them is done, this is acceptable. do not disrespect the answers , this is a topic that have more than one answer for sure
but i was considering also the social approach - when do the drug users community stops REFEREEING to them as RC's - guess its the popularity and acceptance by veteran users, this can happen long before any real reseach is done (see mephedrone)
and than the legal approach - once the system declares its a drug ,
very interesting, i love the drug world :)
They are all drugs. Smoking samson ants is the most popular way of getting high in Dubai. Does that make samson ants a regular drug? :-\ Research chemicals are called research chemicals for a reason. We aren't talking about whether they are common or not because methylone is extremely common in the US, more common than mephedrone ever was in the US but we still don't have much research on it.
-
you are 100% right - but pay attention, this is why i separated two things:
1) when do they stop being RC by definition (what you said - i noted that in the OP)
2) when the drug users community stop REFERRING to them as RC's - which is a bit more complicated
(the point where they stop being legal high is obvious)
Damn this meph binge crushing my brain LOL
-
Everyone in this thread is wrong. It is when there has been a lot of research on the compound. LSD used to be an RC. Now we have decades of research. We do not have much research on the 2C family, methylone or the nBOME family so those are still research chemicals.
took the words out of my mouth....
i cant believe people think its okay to consider these things no longer research chemicals.
everything shulgin invented=pretty much a research chemical
everything nichols invented=definitely a research chemical.
some of what hofmann invented=research chemical.(4-aco-dmt is what i have in mind, im sure hes made more)
i guess an rc probably stops being an rc when we find out the long term effects of it.
you know what if like 40 years down the line methylone makes me grow a dick out of my forhead and i become a mystical unicorn-like creature?
^OBVIOUSLY for the laughs, but seriously. putting new things into your body is quite dangerous. not saying i havent done it, but i definitely require multiple reports before i do anything. even then im still ignorant for doing them. i have no clue what they might do to me down the line.
-
Realistically a few things can happen to psychoactive RC in time:
- it will be registered as a treatment for some condition
- it will be added to the list of controlled substances (which doesntt always exclude the above).
- it will be forgotten, no ban, no legal application, retains 'research compound' status forever
- it will be registered as an OTC medication, natural aid or otherwise FDA approved substance
A fairly large amount of substance would fall under the third category: no disease available that it can treat, and no popularity or problems that would make it a controlled substance either.
For substances that are effective the OTC option i rather rare. Loperamide made it from a dangerous opiate research chemical to an over the counter anti-diarrhea drug, but that is one of the very few i can come up with, and it turned out not to be psychoactive with oral administration in the end.
-
you are 100% right - but pay attention, this is why i separated two things:
1) when do they stop being RC by definition (what you said - i noted that in the OP)
2) when the drug users community stop REFERRING to them as RC's - which is a bit more complicated
(the point where they stop being legal high is obvious)
Damn this meph binge crushing my brain LOL
when the drug users community stop REFERRING to them as RC's - which is a bit more complicated
(the point where they stop being legal high is obvious)
This is what defines RC's, when we (among others) say they are-THEY ARE.
If everyone who smoked weed referred to weed as an RC, it would be known as an RC and as long as its known as an RC i think that implies it is one.
Once RC's are scheduled (after enough research has been done/propaganda has been published) this might curve what the drug using community calls them but if they continue to refer to them as RC's and not narcotics then its a pretty safe bet they would remain known as RC's.
-
I always thought it was a terminology for a chemical designed to imitate illicit materials, kind of the head term for substances like for "plant food", "bath salts" etc., it's the umbrella for any chemical specifically designed to either mimic an illegal substance, or one that happened by accident.
I personally say anything created to do nothing more to get you high by any way (tinkering with existing drugs to get different/reduction/increase of effects in a direct manner would be classed as a research chemical
They've just popped up more and more is down to factors such as the spread of information, compounds discovered that can be changed extremely easily to create a slightly different high, and of course the holy grail for any drug dealer - something that can be mass produced in the open without a single worry in the world, is chemical based, can be tuned in a myriad of ways from 1 "base" compound that can be changed in a heartbeat to avoid law, un/wanted side effects, or increased side/effects
Drug dealing is a combination of the most glamorous, dangerous, profitable, but above all illegal jobs in the world - and its the legal part which is the glow-stick swirling tittie-flashing line-snorting dope-injecting party elephant in the room.
Get rid of that bastard and that could be you...
That's how I've personally always viewed them
But then you have the plethora of career choices that would be so much more fun with trying to find a new drug - for the scientist i'ts the accomplishment, for the company who hires him it's the profits...hell in the long run it's the goverment that legalizes it, takes control and creates a paradise finally tuned for this 1 amazing experience...
There's much more to my answer but I woke up on my computer grabbed a coke and was about to go to bed, I'm dying to type more its an excellent question which I reckon will have a lot of answers from the head and the heart, but I need sleep, I'll definitely keep an eye out on this one.
BTW if you're interested in RCs check my profile I have quite a healthy selection up with various effects, I'd be welcome to create you a small party pack (they'll become a permanent feature when I get some more funds so I can include some others, and throw in a few morning after supplies - xanax, diazepam, valium etc. as with them being new, not only are most people inexperienced, even the internet is scarce.
I'll soon hopefully be working with the UK's #1 importer of the legal side of RCs, with obvious links to illicit ones .
I was about to say fantastic question when I realized it was when do they turn INTO a normal drug, not what defines one. Damn! Ha got all exicted then.
Media attention 99.99% of the time at least in the UK, RC here is just the umbrella term for legal highs.
-
This is what defines RC's, when we (among others) say they are-THEY ARE.
If everyone who smoked weed referred to weed as an RC, it would be known as an RC and as long as its known as an RC i think that implies it is one.
Once RC's are scheduled (after enough research has been done/propaganda has been published) this might curve what the drug using community calls them but if they continue to refer to them as RC's and not narcotics then its a pretty safe bet they would remain known as RC's.
Cannabis is, by most standards, considered a RC. While its use is rather popular, very few states/nations recognize it as a drug that treats some ailment, yet several states and counties do not police its use likey they would something like heroin.
Some jurisdictions do allow cannabis to be in possession for personal use or even trade, while most do not. Living in the netherlands i'm used to a fairly relaxed attitude towards drugs, despite many of them being illegal to use or posses by the letter of the law.
The newer RC seem to be hard to put into any category though. Our legal system basically has two lists of illegal substances, the first one covering 'hard drugs' like heroin, and the second covering 'soft drugs' like cannabis or mdma. By the letter of the law something is illegal if it is listed in one of these lists, but many RC are not listed on either.
Practically there is no enforcement on RC though - if you want to smoke cigs laced with JW018 there simply is no law that forbids it, and hence it is legal to do so. You could get in trouble for driving under the influence of such substances though. You also could have that when driving when using common hay-fever medication like zyrtec or benadryl. That said it would probably not be a good idea to drive around impaired by any substance regardless of its legal status.
-
RCs are no longer RCs when they are outlawed by name, they can no longer be sold "for research purposes only", therefore they are no longer "RESEARCH CHEMICALS"
-
RCs are no longer RCs when they are outlawed by name, they can no longer be sold "for research purposes only", therefore they are no longer "RESEARCH CHEMICALS"
No. There is still no research on them. One countries laws doesn't matter either. Another country can still do research. Research chemicals are chemicals without a long history of research done on them.
-
I guess the answer depends on a lot of things that can be viewed or defined differently depending on who you ask.
"Research Chemical" doesnt necessarily mean there isn't enough research done on them; by name but perhaps it means that by definition.
It would depend on what constitutes 'research' how much is enough, what country passes which laws and based on what?
Another noteworthy question that maybe someone in this thread can answer is who coined the term "research chemical(s)"
whoever first used that phrase would be able to say "why" they did so...
RC's especially 25i and 2C's are pretty well known and common among drug users that i know IRL.
I wouldnt be surprised if they were scheduled within a year or so.
Users just need to start getting caught with them more frequently and then they will become illegal.
-
RC's especially 25i and 2C's are pretty well known and common among drug users that i know IRL.
I wouldnt be surprised if they were scheduled within a year or so.
Users just need to start getting caught with them more frequently and then they will become illegal.
Perhaps. If there will be legislation putting substances like the 25i, 2C and JWH018 on a list of 'forbidden drugs', so be it. This may happen only in one country, in several, or in most.
A big question is on how 'people are caught with them'. If a RC is intoxicating like alcohol you would expect users to crash into guardrails and such, which could be a reason to, for example, ban JWH018 from use in traffic. The US banned it outright for some time, thought its not exactly clear why.
With so many new substances appearing on the market i think the policy on them needs to be reconsidered. Surely some of them will be highly dangerous whilst others are no more dangerous than moderate alcohol usage. Unfortunately legislation always lags reality by several years, so its anyones guress what is to become of the legal status of these compounds eventually.
-
RC's especially 25i and 2C's are pretty well known and common among drug users that i know IRL.
I wouldnt be surprised if they were scheduled within a year or so.
The 2Cs have all been illegal for more than year now
-
Everyone uses the expression differently (and almost no one correctly) and it says nothing about the drugs it refers to. Its meaning is completely arbitrary at this point so it's absolutely worthless.
Why not use the expression "designer drugs"? That's what most people mean when referring to "RCs" anyway so why not simply call them that?
-
There are some weird ideas in this thread.
Go browse the catalog on Erowid. 4-aco-DMT is still considered a RC, with years behind it.
Anecdotes are not data. The popularity of a drug is not going to magically transform a substance from RC to fully understood chemical.
-
There are some weird ideas in this thread.
Go browse the catalog on Erowid. 4-aco-DMT is still considered a RC, with years behind it.
Anecdotes are not data. The popularity of a drug is not going to magically transform a substance from RC to fully understood chemical.
LOL yeah! obviously i started this thread while being high :)