Bluelight

Thread: Safer Research Chemical User's Guide

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 80
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #26
    Bluelighter illuminati boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    amerika's 51st state to the north
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Alfred Prufrock
    I think the DOSRS Rating Scale is what would appeal to someone looking to get fucked up. Maybe that's exactly what's needed and what you intended.

    You say "While there are currently several accepted scales that can roughly quantify overall level of drug effect, no scale in regular use relates the subject’s overall personal judgment of a material’s worth."

    I'd like to hear about these "several accepted scales" to see how they wouldn't measure a material's worth. For example this one:

    "Dose-Response Study of N,N-Dimethyltryptamine in Human. II. Subjective Effects and Preliminary Results of a New Rating Scale," Archives of General Psychiatry 51 (1994): 98-108 Rick J. Strassman, Clifford R. Qualls, Eberhard H. Uhlenhuth, and Robert Kellner.

    Since you say that there are "several accepted scales", you must have references for them. What are they?
    A couple of points…

    In the above quote ‘in regular use’ really pertains to general non-specialist discussion of ‘Research Chemicals’ on boards such as this or in Trip Reports. One is quite aware of many alternate scales/ways of quantifying drug effects that may be used in academic research or Rx drug trials. One just does not see something like the ACRI Amphetamine Scale or some similar measure catching on in non scholarly discussions. So one created their own scale that met a couple of criteria 1) Simple to apply and understand 2) Fixed data point anchors that are sensible and realistic 3) Small number of response choices with a midpoint and two extreme points 4) Little extra effort required in order to type 5) Communicates important data.

    In regard to ‘several accepted scales’ for rating psychedelic compounds one is aware of several scholarly and non-scholarly scales relevant to discussion of psychedelic drugs. Strassman’s Hallucinogen Rating Scale (HRS) (up through version 3.06 anyway), Metzner’s Altered States Graphic Profile (ASGP), Shulgin’s Rating Scale, Graeme Carl’s Psychedelic Level System, Siebert’s SALVIA Experiential Rating Scale, ‘Plateaus,’ etc.

    The problem with most of the scales is that they address intensity, types of effects, duration, etc. or discus a specific experience, but do not really specifically focus on the subject’s subjective valuation of the compound in total… or if they do they tend to do so in an unwieldy manner. The 2 scales included above address 2 different things intensity of an acute experience and overall assessment of the compound in question. They may not be perfect or the only such scales, but they are compact and easy to use. Nothing like the DOSRS appears to be in general use on drug discussion boards, so there it is. In specific regard to the other scales mentioned above: Strassman has a beautiful scale… but 100 item questionnaires will not happen outside of clinical trials. Metzner’s scale is ideally for graphing over time. Shulgin’s scale gives an overview of effect intensity but does not say if a compound is worthwhile. Graeme Carl’s System may be particular to a few tryptamines. Siebert’s SALVIA Scale is clearly very drug specific. Etc. At any rate, there is really no compact way that people in a forum like this can communicate their overall subjective rating of a compound other than the DOSRS (so far as one is aware or fits the ideal criterion etc.).

    Overall though, one is looking to make a better end product, so if you have some alternate suggestions in the area of scales etc. would love to hear them. Any other feedback would also be greatly appreciated.


    I B

    (PS Bear in mind that the above treatise was composed rather quickly so one is sure there is plenty of room for both pruning and growth)
    Last edited by illuminati boy; 26-12-2005 at 21:39.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #27
    Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm very impressed by that summary. Excellent work!
    Last edited by J. Alfred Prufrock; 28-12-2005 at 20:20.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #28
    I_B kudos for the massive effort.

    once the V1 is condensed and / or this thread is filtered, may i have the privilege of cross-posting to my forums, all author rights reserved, of course?

    do what thou wilt
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Thanks to Illuminati Boy. 
    #29
    Bluelight Crew B9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    wherever Chaos needs bringing to Order
    Posts
    37,383
    Thumbs up
    Well done I B. most impressive and thorough, personally i can't see anything that you've missed, i like the "location in space and time" comment .
    I reckon that you deserve gratitude for this effort.
    So thank you Illuminati Boy, compliments of the season and all that.

    zophen.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #30
    Bluelighter illuminati boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    amerika's 51st state to the north
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by nanobrain
    once the V1 is condensed and / or this thread is filtered, may i have the privilege of cross-posting to my forums, all author rights reserved, of course?
    Here is the game plan at present: One will pretty much hold off on making any changes to the present draft until about the 1st or 2nd week in January, after people have had sufficient time to comment and add suggestions.

    In the interim if people would like to post a link to this thread in other forums and encourage folks the world over to comment that would be great. If any folks suggest some significant revisions that get incorporated into the final draft, one will be more than happy to put their name on this work as well (if they consent).

    One’s current plan is to make the final product public domain provided the content is not altered and it contains a link to the original source. It will most likely be ‘housed’ here at BL, but could conceivably end up at Erowid if the final product is sharp enough and they and the consensus here think it appropriate.

    So feel free to critique / chop away folks!

    I B
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #31
    Bluelighter spun420833's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Padre
    Posts
    195
    Awesome job IB! I can tell you took your time and really put your heart and mind into it. BTW I was giving you plenty of feedback on the dosrs scale when you posted on the temp page. I just didn't bother to register so my posts were coming up as guest. Once again, cheers and kudos.

    spun
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #32
    i'm tempted to heckle over some of the finer points (as in distribution... : / ) but for the most part, i congratulate your effort to embetter the situation for everyone. big ups.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #33
    Bluelighter illuminati boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    amerika's 51st state to the north
    Posts
    329
    ^ Any particular suggestions? As for that part, one would ideally want to dissuade distribution, but still one wants to suggest harm-reduction approaches for each possible aspect of this subject. The same goes with IV… while one would never recommend it to anyone in any way, it is better that people be informed and aware of the possible hazards.

    Again though Fwoosh, if you have any suggestions (even tiny alterations in wording etc.) please feel free to post as one would look forward to seeing them and how well they might do in place of current language.

    I B
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #34
    Bluelighter Toltec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Southwest USA >>-->
    Posts
    824
    Thanks for that IB~
    Last edited by Toltec; 04-01-2006 at 16:25.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #35
    Bluelighter specialspack's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,839
    Two minor technical points:

    1) In the section on "Acquiring compounds", you use the phrase "toe the line" incorrectly. To "toe the line" means to follow the rules, accept the status quo, etc. What I assume you want to use here is some sort of reference to treading a fine line between legal and illegal.;

    2) In the methods of ingestion, you have a section called "Pyrolysis/vapourisation". These are not the same - pyrolysis usually refers to decomposition by heat (usually in absence of oxygen), i.e. a chemical change takes place. Pyrolysis of DMT would suggest it breaks down into one or more other chemicals. Vapourisation refers to a change in state (liquid->solid), where there is no chemical change, i.e. the DMT stays as DMT.

    More generally, I don't think much of the tone of certain parts of the article, specifically "why become a researcher?" which tends to imply that by purchasing and ingesting these compounds, one is becoming a "researcher", when most of the time one is doing nothing of the sort (unless you are the kind of person who likes to take the highest dose possible to test the safety limits of the drug ). There's nothing wrong with ingesting these chemicals for recreation, self-development or spiritual purposes, but I don't think it should be dressed up as scientific research, which it clearly is not. Most of the time single experience reports add very little to what we know about the effects of these drugs, mainly because they are highly subjective and variable.

    Otherwise, very well done!
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #36
    Bluelighter gloggawogga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,132
    More generally, I don't think much of the tone of certain parts of the article, specifically "why become a researcher?" which tends to imply that by purchasing and ingesting these compounds, one is becoming a "researcher", when most of the time one is doing nothing of the sort (unless you are the kind of person who likes to take the highest dose possible to test the safety limits of the drug ). There's nothing wrong with ingesting these chemicals for recreation, self-development or spiritual purposes, but I don't think it should be dressed up as scientific research, which it clearly is not. Most of the time single experience reports add very little to what we know about the effects of these drugs, mainly because they are highly subjective and variable.
    Actually, I'd take what you're saying here another step. I think we need to throw out the term "research chemical", and replace it with something along the lines of "unresearched chemical". Because "unresearched chemicals" is essentially what these chemicals are, and with language like that there wouldn't be any confusion about it. The term "research chemical" was originally coined by vendors to try to legitimatize the sale of their products. That failed anyways, and the term was never meant to imply that people who use these drugs are doing any sort of "research". The term has outlived its usefullness and is grossly misleading. I think this document would be a good chance to get rid of it and replace it with something else. And I think the term "unresearched chemical" would be a more accurate replacement, because thats essentially what these substances really are.


    So IOW, what I'm suggesting would for the most part involve replacing the term "research chemical" everywhere in the document, including the title, with the term "unresearched chemical". So the new name of the document would be "Safer Unresearched Chemical User's Guide", etc. etc.
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #37
    Bluelight Crew B9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    wherever Chaos needs bringing to Order
    Posts
    37,383
    ^But will people ever change such a long standing association?
    You will(for this to be successful) have to get the agreement of erowid and others or the result will be confusion , which would clearly be undesirable.
    Personally i feel that you may have a point in that the "casual" user of RCs would be less likely to consider taking an "unresearched" chemical.
    Good luck.



    zophen
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #38
    Bluelighter Toltec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Southwest USA >>-->
    Posts
    824
    Changing the name from research chemical to un-researched chemical is a good idea, after all RC's imply something tested by people or animals already. If i was to hear the term Un-researched chemical I would have done allot more thinking about how it could effect me.

    The nature of these chemicals helps one change the way "You See" the world. so UC sounds a bit more accurate then RC's do.

    Seriously though, Zophen has a good point!
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #39
    Bluelighter gloggawogga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,132
    ^But will people ever change such a long standing association?
    I see what you are saying, and thats why I thought doing so in this document before its published in any sort of official way would be a good opportunity try to get the term to catch on.


    You will(for this to be successful) have to get the agreement of erowid and others or the result will be confusion , which would clearly be undesirable.
    I don't see how it would create too much confusion. Terms are interchangable. The term "designer drug" is still usable if you want to use it. If we start by changing the term in this document to "unresearched chemical", and clarify why we use the term that way in this document, its not going to cause older documents using the term "research chemical" to be confusing. Plus, if you can get erowid or others to pick up the change in a few of their documents, the change would catch on.

    Personally i feel that you may have a point in that the "casual" user of RCs would be less likely to consider taking an "unresearched" chemical.
    That, and that these kids think they are pioneers walking in the moon or something when they "research" these chemicals.

    Anyways, I just thought I'd throw the idea in the water. I'm gonna start calling them "unresearched chemicals" wherever I discuss them, whether it catches on or not.
    Last edited by gloggawogga; 08-01-2006 at 18:59.
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
    Reply to specialspack's points. 
    #40
    Bluelighter illuminati boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    amerika's 51st state to the north
    Posts
    329
    specialspack:

    With regard to Point 1... actually one has heard it generally contextually used to roughly refer to coming close to breaking a rule… either by being just inside or just outside of bounds as it were. But not a big deal either way… may change it.

    With regard to Point 2… pure forehead slap on that one! Went out of my way to distinguish between vaporizing and chemical transformation and then labeled it “Pyrolized.” Good one I B. Good catch specialspack. Will definitely be corrected in the finalized version.

    With regard to the more general critique… yea a credit card and some Google savvy does not really make one a researcher. There are several reasons for the organization as such though. Wanted to convey that anyone looking into ‘researching’ these compounds better have an approach of disciplined seriousness. Wanted to stress that these are not well known agents (see also response to gloggawogga below). Also wanted to follow the theme of a parody of an old early Renaissance research treatise for ones own goofy aesthetic reasons (quite shocked that some good Latinists have yet to take me to task for my liberal use of the language in the title). Further, while many people are interested in so called ‘Research Chemicals’ for personal exploration, recreation, and/or spiritual growth and development; there really are some pharmacological nerds out there that are really interested in the science, real rats and all! Also, yes single research reports are not very useful… but remember that this writer has been consistently working toward a method of collecting aggregate data about somatic effects, ‘primary’ effects, ‘side’ effects etc. with the intent of comparing to both inactive and active placebo control data from Rx drug trials of psychotropic compounds.

    Want to thank you again for your thoughtful comments (especially the good catch on Point 2). Each of them is something to think about.

    I B
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
    Reply to gloggawogga's point. 
    #41
    Bluelighter illuminati boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    amerika's 51st state to the north
    Posts
    329
    gloggawogga:

    You have a good point. And you will note that, assuming I didn’t miss any in the edit process, every reference to the phrase ‘Research Chemicals’ is in quotes. Your point is definitely something worth considering. Might keep it in the title and then quickly state that a more accurate designation would be ‘Unresearched Chemicals’ and use that phrase throughout the rest of the document. Will think about this or similar changes further.

    I B
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #42
    The term "unresearched chemical" won't be accepted,just a feeling Ï have now,might expand later.
    Reply With Quote
     

  18. Collapse Details
     
    #43
    Bluelighter kevz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,477
    props to illuminati boy for puttin all this information together
    Reply With Quote
     

  19. Collapse Details
     
    #44
    Although I certainly learned of research chemicals through their availability online, I do not support that profit-driven idea. Research with these chemicals should go on, perhaps, under only very well intentioned supervision by the user himself and the source.... At this point, I have no idea where to find new r/c's, and I think thats the way it should be until research is thoroughly completed and documented. (not saying I wouldn't like to be still in the scene, I just think thats it's probably for the best that the non-technocrat not have access to these compounds and the information relating to them for the assurance that research will continue)

    I mean, seriously, that shit in the late 90's-early 2000 was crazy! 2c-e in the hands of idiots!
    Reply With Quote
     

  20. Collapse Details
     
    #45
    2c-e in the hands of idiots!
    From what I read daily in this forum, there is no shortage of idiots with access to these chemicals.
    Reply With Quote
     

  21. Collapse Details
     
    #46
    I'd like to note that sublingual absorption seems to be quite underestimated, at least from the reports on this forum and erowid. Sure it tastes awful (which actually has for effect the increase in salivation) but if you can hold the liquid at the back of your mouth (the pharynx is reportedly ideal) the onset is faster and much more pronounced for certain substances. I only have one anecdote as I made this discovery yesterday but it merits further inspection. Simply licking my fingers (couldn't have been more than 2-3mg) from handling a gelcap dusty with 4-Aco-Mipt and absorbing the acrid liquid in mouth gave me a very pronounced visual (the whole floor was rolling waves, shroom style) less than 10 minutes later.
    Reply With Quote
     

  22. Collapse Details
     
    #47
    Bluelighter trip.more's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,023
    I wish companies would look into customers before sales.I see some are but most will sell to any idiot who can use a credit card.I think they should examine posts made on BL and other psychoactive forums by a possible customer to see if they know anything about the substances they are inquiring about.
    Reply With Quote
     

  23. Collapse Details
     
    #48
    Bluelighter Ximot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    South East Asia
    Posts
    3,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Adolfo
    Simply licking my fingers (couldn't have been more than 2-3mg) from handling a gelcap dusty with 4-Aco-Mipt and absorbing the acrid liquid in mouth gave me a very pronounced visual (the whole floor was rolling waves, shroom style) less than 10 minutes later.
    This sounds so familiar, man! Once I open Pandora's box, i usually end up tripping, even if I don't ingest a whole dose.... maybe that's why the police raid people's houses in chemical hazard suits

    And it's so true about sublingual absorption. I do it often because I like to make contact with the substance. And it does kick in way faster and my body seems less shocked when it does.
    Reply With Quote
     

  24. Collapse Details
     
    #49
    Bluelighter DexterMeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    worthless neck beard scum
    Posts
    52,561
    Never redose unless you are absolutely sure that the chemical wont sometime later finally come on and have you tripping good from your initial dose. Sometimes a chem can take 4-5 hours to come on fully! Even if you are very experienced with the drug, you know what little alerts/details to look out for, you should still always wait it out until you're absolutely sure that you could use more. Also, 1 + 1 doesn't necesarrily equal 2. The dose response curve for many "unreseached-chems" can have such an unbelievably steep and sudden increase. For instance 2mg might be a light trip, 6mg is a decent, 10 a strong and 12mg way too much. Just a 2mg increase makes the trip unbarable at a certain level, when at the same time at lower levels a 4mg even up to an 8mg increase is reasonable. So be careful. Be cautious. Be smart.
    Reply With Quote
     

  25. Collapse Details
     
    #50
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    LA,CA
    Posts
    1,478
    For consideration in the Metavestatractichemici, I would add that also absent in most rating systems is a quick reference to duration of effect. Perhaps a numeric postcript informing the reader in this regard would be helpful.

    For example, one could divide onset times into the following three categories:

    1 = immediate: less than half an hour.
    2 = between 1/2 hour and two hours.
    3 = two to three hours.
    4 = three to four hours.
    5 = more than four hours.

    Next would be the consideration of duration of actual effect. Again, numerically categorized:

    1 = brief: less than one hour
    2 = one to four hours.
    3 = four to eight hours.
    4 = eight to fourteen hours.
    5 = over fourteen hours.

    Combined, the onset/effect duration postcript could be rendered as a fraction. For example, LSD might be rated as:

    B2/4

    With the 2/4 written as, say, and exponent (small elevated numerals.)

    Just off the cuff, but for me the issue of duration of onset and effect is of major importance and should be immediately available information. Any thorough rating system, I would think, should spontaneously illuminate one in this regard.

    BTW, I want to add my compliments to Illuminati Boy for a fantastic effort. You have yielded a signifcant contribution -- well done.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •