Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Tools for practical psychofarmacological studies

John Doe - 4-11-2014 at 09:01

Hello everyone.

Since I'm living in a third world country that has some strange notions of education, all my chemistry education consisted on some musings from a woman whose sole credential was “being the the director's son fiancee” and not so very interesting talk about the personal life of another teacher. Since I have the interest of getting a degree on chemistry on a (foreign) university, I will have to study by myself everything need to get to a undergraduate level and follow from there.

After long time given to the thought of what exactly I wanted to do, reading Shulgin's Pihkal gave me both the interest and the direction. I understand people here have different interests, ranging from acids to explosives, and here's mine: psychedelic substances and their applications on therapy or personal self-awareness. I'm not interested in “getting stoned”, getting money by helping others to do that or anything like that. I have an intellectual and academic interest on this area, and I do want to take it seriously — which requires understanding of the process involved, for starters, which some "cooks" don't seem to care about; it's not my problem what other people want, but this is not what I want.

While I'm studying, and specially when I get to a university, I intend to apply the knowledge, study reactions and so on by practicing it on lab and of course I will have to set one. I'm at the very beginning — I mean it: some days ago I was presented to the nine first substance on the periodic table... — so I can't yet know how technically complex will be the procedures of making some of the compounds described on Pihkal (and also Tihkal) and that's why I want to ask you two things:

First: Suppose I'm ready enough to synthesize even the complex (in terms of procedures) substances described on the aforementioned book and had a lab ready (in terms of glassware and tools) to make them. What do you believe I would need in such lab? I won't be able to get to this point now, I'm just trying to find a model to follow of would be a good enough workplace for me some years from now.

Second: Until I get to the point of having the lab described above, what do you believe would be the most important things to have now? I'm thinking about glassware and tools in general, but of course other suggestions (substances etc.) are very welcome. What should I begin with? What are the most important stuff to get? What do you believe would be a nice set to “do enough good, despite with some difficult, even without having everything I need to feel 'OK' in terms of materials”?

(I know there are many similar topics about how to stock a lab, but I wanted to focus on this particular area of studies, so I thought it deserved a specific topic. Maybe not, but, again, I don't know enough to know that yet, I apologize if I wasted your time.)

If you was good enough to read this long topic, and, understanding what I want, can give any suggestion or spare any advice, I thank you very much.

Thank you all for reading.

P.S.: I do not intend to do anything illegal — not illegal in my country, at least —, what should be clear from the text of this topic. I don't want to do harm to others or myself. I want to deal with my thirst for knowledge and that's it. I feel it necessary to say this, and to be very detailed (despite making the topic bigger) so as to avoid misunderstandings or scare good people who otherwise could give me a great deal of advice. If there are further doubts of what I want, please refer to my answer to Chemosynthesis's comment below, I believe I've made things clearer. Thank you!

P.P.S.: I don't think I've given this topic the best possible title, the same way it's body doesn't convey exactly what I want — I can think on closer things, but each one would be cause for misunderstandings, I believe. So I'm taking suggestions on that as well.

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by John Doe]

Chemosynthesis - 4-11-2014 at 09:49

Unfortunately, because the site is hosted in the United States, U.S. law is given deference here, so it would be somewhat difficult to assist you. I am sorry to hear your educational system is lacking in what you have interest in, however I will tell you from professional experience that psychopharmacology is not the same as someone ingesting psychotropics, hence why you cannot find any peer reviewed journal articles utilizing this method, nor any psychopharmacologists proposing it as a research technique.

If you want to study pharmacology, the actual synthesis of pharmaceuticals is not what you need to study, though a strong background in chemistry is useful. If it's the synthetic chemistry you are interested, the pharmacology is somewhat irrelevant. If it's clinical therapy you want to do, while there are clinical pharmacologists, you probably have more interest in practicing psychology or psychiatry.

Alexander Shulgin did a lot of interesting chemistry and ingested substances with his wife, but this was in a professional chemiatry lab and gave only anecdotal data.
Current pharmacological studies require preclinical testing, statistically relevant and laboriously expensive, huge clinical trials, and double blind trials where the observers are not only sober, but are unaware of treatment regimens versus placebo.

You are more interested in the synthetic medicinal/pharmaceutical chemistry, and if you are interested in repeating Shulgin's experiments (as I have yet to hear of any non-professionals or research chemical producers discovering their own pharmacodynamic mechanisms), if you are interested in repeating Shulgin's experiments and ingesting chemicals without known safety profiles (which can be acute or chronic), I think you should at least focus on purity of materials. Analytical chemistry is particularly suited to purification and characterization of chemicals, however, the standards for pharmaceuticals are very far out of the reach of most amateurs.

Most pharmaceutical labs have every analytical instrument type you can name, and heavily rely on automated flash chromatography systems and mass spec of various types, as well as NMR. Learning how to operate a gradient on a Waters UPLC or perform specialized types of NMR (STD, fluorine) are generally not undergraduate research topics. That's post doc material. Psychopharmacology postdocs often learn things including in vivo micro dialysis, special rat behavioral tests, various cellular assays, cytometry, confocal microscopy, trial design (also not trivial), etc.

Unless you are able to perform testing on animal models or cell lines, picking the appropriate ones (not a simple task), and getting valid statistical results, you would not be performing valid psychopharm experiments; you would be ingesting drugs. You might not do it to get high, and you might not cause any detectable harm to yourself, but it's just not the contemporary standard of research. Nor will you be likely to gain much objective knowledge from ingesting substances that are intended to alter your cognition in some sense. This is an inherently questionable aspect that I do not understand how you could reconcile with experimental controls.

John Doe - 4-11-2014 at 10:36

Dear Chemosynthesis,

Thank you for the detailed answer, it was very insightful and kind.

If you don't mind, I will make your answer into blocks and answer each one:
Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
Unfortunately, because the site is hosted in the United States, U.S. law is given deference here, so it would be somewhat difficult to assist you. (...)


I don't think that's going to be a problem; I may be wrong, of course, but I don't believe that having a home lab is, in itself, unlawful — otherwise we wouldn't be here at all, I suppose — ; furthermore, despite some of the compounds described (and tried) by Shulgin's being illegal when used by humans, even in research, I don't believe we would in anyway go against what's permissive by the mere discussion of the setting of a lab and the acquisition of tools, specially when I'm not saying I intend to do anything against the current legislation of the USA. But if we can't regard this as a intellectual exercise of "what if", the existence of this topic being considered a help in doing wicked stuff and without serving any useful purpose, I will have no problem in removing this topic (if the moderation doesn't do that first).
Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
(...) I am sorry to hear your educational system is lacking in what you have interest in, however I will tell you from professional experience that psychopharmacology is not the same as someone ingesting psychotropics, hence why you cannot find any peer reviewed journal articles utilizing this method, nor any psychopharmacologists proposing it as a research technique.


Oh, you're probably right. I don't think I've made myself clear, though. I believe that studies on psychopharmacology, among others (botany, for instance, etc.) will provide me with the formation necessary to the comprehension of certain processes and the kind of activity I find intellectually stimulant. I'm still not sure about how these interests (there are more than one) will fit at one specific career — Shulgin himself became a private consultant and chemistry teacher; the kind of his studies I'm mentioning here weren't part of his formal career, as it were —, or the kind of formal research that would allow the exercise of them. I wasn't thinking that "psychopharmacology is not the same as someone ingesting psychotropics", even if I did give that impression; but your warning won't be taken lightly.
Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
If you want to study pharmacology, the actual synthesis of pharmaceuticals is not what you need to study, though a strong background in chemistry is useful. If it's the synthetic chemistry you are interested, the pharmacology is somewhat irrelevant. If it's clinical therapy you want to do, while there are clinical pharmacologists, you probably have more interest in practicing psychology or psychiatry.


Indeed, I'm interested in synthetic chemistry, but also in clinical therapy (and psychology and psychiatry), and I wouldn't exclude pharmacology — among others, like botany, I've already mentioned and so on. Before professionally focusing on something, I would like to have a solid grounding on more than an area. If, in the end, I can do something correlate, like teaching, even being a consultant myself, so I can have the proverbial bread on my table, and study and research by myself on these matters, so be it; I will see.

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
Alexander Shulgin did a lot of interesting chemistry and ingested substances with his wife, but this was in a professional chemiatry lab and gave only anecdotal data.
Current pharmacological studies require preclinical testing, statistically relevant and laboriously expensive, huge clinical trials, and double blind trials where the observers are not only sober, but are unaware of treatment regimens versus placebo.

Most of his work was developed on the lab he had on his farm, set by himself; I don't know how close it would be to a professional setting, but I believe it would be fine enough to me (and, well, if he managed to set it, maybe I can in some years do the same). And he published a lot. The activity of researching and publishing, or just the discovery part itself, is close enough to what I want, even if it doesn't bring a "standard" scientific career.
Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
You are more interested in the synthetic medicinal/pharmaceutical chemistry, and if you are interested in repeating Shulgin's experiments (as I have yet to hear of any non-professionals or research chemical producers discovering their own pharmacodynamic mechanisms), if you are interested in repeating Shulgin's experiments and ingesting chemicals without known safety profiles (which can be acute or chronic), I think you should at least focus on purity of materials. Analytical chemistry is particularly suited to purification and characterization of chemicals, however, the standards for pharmaceuticals are very far out of the reach of most amateurs.

I'm not interested in repeating any experiments I can't understand (not only "how to do", but "why is that so"), or ingesting anything recklessly. I'm speaking about years of study, of getting more tools as I manage and as a learn more, doing simple experiments and proceed from that to more complex ones — I really don't intend to replicate any of those experiments before some years of study and practice, but I'm sure there's much I can do to make me ready for that. The same way my first question was about the ideal setting for this kind of studies, not something I want (or can have) right now, my particular interests give me the direction for what I should acquire in terms of knowledge.

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
Most pharmaceutical labs have every analytical instrument type you can name, and heavily rely on automated flash chromatography systems and mass spec of various types, as well as NMR. Learning how to operate a gradient on a Waters UPLC or perform specialized types of NMR (STD, fluorine) are generally not undergraduate research topics. That's post doc material. Psychopharmacology postdocs often learn things including in vivo micro dialysis, special rat behavioral tests, various cellular assays, cytometry, confocal microscopy, trial design (also not trivial), etc.


You've just pointed me to much material for future study, thank you very much!
Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
Unless you are able to perform testing on animal models or cell lines, picking the appropriate ones (not a simple task), and getting valid statistical results, you would not be performing valid psychopharm experiments; you would be ingesting drugs. You might not do it to get high, and you might not cause any detectable harm to yourself, but it's just not the contemporary standard of research. Nor will you be likely to gain much objective knowledge from ingesting substances that are intended to alter your cognition in some sense. This is an inherently questionable aspect that I do not understand how you could reconcile with experimental controls.


Good point, indeed. Maybe I will come to change my opinions on these matters over time, but right now — and I'm coming from a very conservative mindset about this, not the other way round — I wouldn't despise the subjective input of this kind of experience, if without much of objective knowledge, at least personally; maybe the reconciliation you point to is impossible, but I have much time to think about that.

Again, thank you very much for your kind answer. Not only you gave me much of knowledge here but also a good opportunity to clarify much of my first topic, so I believe everyone will understand better what I want and what I do not want.

My best regards.

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by John Doe]

Chemosynthesis - 4-11-2014 at 11:05

Sorry I misunderstood somewhat the nature of the breadth of your post. What I was given as general advice in chemistry, and this is possibly outdated, was that analytical chemistry is valuable in almost any chemistry setting because it emphasizes very good lab practice in terms of handling small quantities of substances and good techniques that integrate well into any lab. I completely understand the desire to study a wide range of topics, but would offer the personal advice of being on the lookout for what most catches your interest, as dabbling too much in many fields will slow your professional advancement.

If you study a general introductory organic chemistry textbook, this is probably sufficient for helping determine what field/specialty you are most interested in, as it is a prerequisite for most U.S. health professions as well as chemistry graduate programs, and I think is very good for understanding mechanisms of biochemistry. While there are pharmacologists without a strong biochemistry background, I personally don't understand why someone would willingly go that route, as the vast majority of drugs target proteins.

Even if you become a molecular biologist, it's my opinion that the best molecular biologists I know tend to be much more versed in organic chemistry than those I am not impressed with. It really doesn't matter much what you study in undergraduate, as meeting the prerequisites for a career path allow for people of all backgrounds to be scientists, physicians, pharmacists, nurses, etc.

What I mean by Shulgin operating as a professional is that he filed a DEA Form 225 research license for his home lab, which is somewhat of an invasive procedure and outside the reach of an amateur who is not a professional. It is much more rare to find an amateur without professional training and education publishing as he did, though amateurs do publish. This seems like much less of a bureaucratic issue in your country, though the knowledge on how to operate the equipment itself may be harder to come by.

If there are any neuroscience programs in your region, perhaps you could tour a lab? They tend to be extremely interdisciplinary in the U.S. This might allow you to encounter people of many professions working in concert before deciding what you want to do the next few years of your life.

And also remember that my advice was free, so arguably worth nothing, and comes from a stranger on the internet.

John Doe - 4-11-2014 at 11:20

Dear Chemosynthesis,

Thank you again. Your posts are gems and I will regard them with the proper attention — including the meta-advice of being careful with advices; but, you know, the good think about living in countries like mine is that being careful becomes a second nature.

About publishing, since I'm ready to proceed slowly, and since things are hard to come by here, by the time I actually have something to publish I might as well have the professional training and education required.

And I don't think it will be easy to find a lab to tour here, actually. Maybe on the universities itself, of course, but even so. Nevertheless, I will see to that. Even this will take time here, though.

Again, thank you very much.

My best regards.

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by John Doe]

macckone - 4-11-2014 at 12:13

Shuglin does some very complex syntheses.
You should probably start with simpler synthesis reactions to start.
It sounds like you probably need a good foundation in inorganic chemistry first.

Chemosynthesis - 4-11-2014 at 15:03

Macckone makes an excellent point; I wasn't very clear that I only recommend moving to organic chemistry after you have a good grasp of inorganic chemistry at the introductory level. It's important to find a textbook you find easy to read, and to feel free to try other texts or even trusted internet sources/videos if you find an explanation of a topic lacking. Sometimes the way a teacher of book describe a topic makes more sense than another one. If you get stuck, people on this forum are often happy to help as long as you show that you tried to understand something, just so we know we aren't finishing someone's homework for them.

To learn organic chemistry before college/university would be an unreasonable expectation, at least to me. There are actually quite a few texts available in this thread: http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=6664

I suggest using the HTTPS link here instead if possible: https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper
/viewthread.php?tid=6664

In concluding this post, I am thankful for and flattered by your compliments and hope you are productive in finding what makes you happiest. As long as your interest remains, it would be nice to see you continue posting as your confidence in the material increases.

John Doe - 5-11-2014 at 08:50

Quote: Originally posted by macckone  
Shuglin does some very complex syntheses.
You should probably start with simpler synthesis reactions to start.
It sounds like you probably need a good foundation in inorganic chemistry first.

Dear macckone,

That's exactly my plan. I don't believe I will be doing any thing as complex as some of the syntheses there for a while — probably for some years, who knows. Before being knowledgeable enough to do that (what indeed will require a solid foundation in inorganic chemistry as well), and having the required tools and materials, I intend to begin with what I can, and proceed to slowly setting up my lab over time. I'm seeking directions on this beginning steps, with an eye turned to the future; if a home lab would be mostly the same at first, my future needs will tend to give more weight to some acquisitions over others and so on, and maybe right now it would be most important to get this or that, to learn this or that and so on. Thank you very much for your comment!
Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
Macckone makes an excellent point; I wasn't very clear that I only recommend moving to organic chemistry after you have a good grasp of inorganic chemistry at the introductory level. It's important to find a textbook you find easy to read, and to feel free to try other texts or even trusted internet sources/videos if you find an explanation of a topic lacking. Sometimes the way a teacher of book describe a topic makes more sense than another one. If you get stuck, people on this forum are often happy to help as long as you show that you tried to understand something, just so we know we aren't finishing someone's homework for them.

To learn organic chemistry before college/university would be an unreasonable expectation, at least to me. There are actually quite a few texts available in this thread: http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=6664

I suggest using the HTTPS link here instead if possible: https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper
/viewthread.php?tid=6664

In concluding this post, I am thankful for and flattered by your compliments and hope you are productive in finding what makes you happiest. As long as your interest remains, it would be nice to see you continue posting as your confidence in the material increases.

Dear Chemosynthesis,

Wow, I will have good readings for a while! I've been collection some good introductory books for a while now and I'll take my time. Since I'm not in a hurry, I believe the effort will compensate for the lack of formal education (of quality).

[A big spare paragraph about our educational system (feel free to jump over it, if it is not of interest):

You see... Our government here, when it comes to education, is all about numbers; the way they found to show educated we are is to share the number of students who finish high school, but they "forget" to speak about the quality of the teaching there as well. You see, it's almost impossible not to be approved, even if you're actively trying, and the teachers are not allowed to reprove anyone, except for exceptional cases. Since everyone knows that, you can't get a good job — by "good" I mean you can both eat and pay the rent with what you get by working there — just by finishing high school. Since, despite being poor, everyone wants iPhones etc., so the thousands and thousands who can barely write their names, or read and understand a simple text, go to the university, not because they care about education, or learning in general (they despise it), but because a diploma will give them better jobs. So, they go first to public universities, but... well, their admissions exams are hard, so only a few, dedicated students can get there without paying the high costs for good preparatory courses, what means that, ironically, our public universities here are mostly for the wealthy — also because of frequent political strikes and teachers who give classes on unbelievable times (Oh, you're enrolled on the nocturnal course? I don't care, tomorrow you're gonna learn in the morning; do you work? Too bad for you, eh?); the poorer can wait eight years to finish a course of five, or skip work to study. The private institutions receive this thousands of semi-illiterate individuals. Then what? Either they keep they good teaching standards and everyone drop out (because they're not ready for that, far from it!), or they lower they standards, so people can follow and give them more money; that's exactly what happens. So, if you're on a private institution, people are on the classroom to do everything from drink to "be very intimate with another someone", and the teachers can't give a good class because only a few will understand; sometimes, it's the same on public universities, plus the strikes and chaotic schedules. Usually, we go to college/universities to get a diploma, not to learn; the ones who do want to learn spend more time on the library than on actual classes, some times even skipping this in favor of that, with some happy exceptions (there are still good teachers, good classes and so on). You see, you can come here and, without reading one single book ever, or even knowing how to properly speak our language, finish the Law school and become a lawyer. Most expectations, when it comes to serious learning, are unreasonable here, but necessary nevertheless; I hope I will be able to deal with organic chemistry enough by myself before going deeper elsewhere, or lucky enough to find a good place to learn without much hunger.]

This a good place; people are here to actually learn, instead of displaying some appearances. I will try my best to ask for help after actually doing my best to solve the problems myself — that's how I learn. Indeed, it would be very, very nice to improve, to learn and, someday, being able to help someone else, to share what I've learned.

Thank you again, your answers have been very helpful. I wish you the very best in your own studies and work.

My best regards!

Furboffle - 10-11-2014 at 18:11

my advice:
if you don't know what materials should be good to have on hand or labware, don't do it, legal advice don't do it period. I was in the same boat a couple years ago. I thought "oh I can do this" though i had a decent understanding of organic chemistry to begin with. I succesfully made 3 or 4 things from the pihkal and tihkal. you think its all legit "these things aren't scheduled here, I'm in the clear" that can't be further from the truth. if you want to persue this shit, get a chemistry degree and find a legitimate outlet studying these chemicals. theres nothing you can do at home thats legitimate. Shulgin just pumped the substances out and had the authorization to do so as long as he reported the info to the DEA, you're not going to get that privellage. this stuff is being studied academically. Dr. Dave Nichols works with all this crap at Perdue. get a degree and work with him.
I attempted it on my own and ended up having my place raided by county and city police squads, DEA, and a swat team and was charged with half a dozen felonies. worst experience you could ever imagine. its not worth it. luckily I had adjudication withheld so I have a clean record so I won't be hindered when I seek a legit job in the field once I finish grad school. I thought what I was doing was legal. definitely not. they don't care. everything in those books is an analogue to something scheduled. they will get you with the analogue act. if you want to make anything make something far from the realm of those books.

Chemosynthesis - 10-11-2014 at 19:41

The poster claims not to be a U.S. citizen. While I do generally agree with what you are saying with regard to phenethylamines and tryptamines, the Controlled Substances Act and amendments don't apply to most countries in the same way the Federal Analog Act does in the States. Presumably the OP is immune (he seems to be South/Central American). Obviously anyone in the U.S. making analogs of schedule I and II narcotics is taking an expensive legal risk even if not intended for human consumption, unless they are properly licensed/certified (as many researchers are; I work/have worked in labs that used otherwise schedule I analogs for research, as well as schedule II and III narcotics).

Even in the U.K., Australia, Canada, etc. their laws tend to ban only explicitly listed substances, and it's unlikely all countries need you to be considered a professional to get the equivalent of Form 225 DEA approval, if this even exists in their jurisdiction. This form does require more than just reporting data to the DEA, and needs you to prove educational background, experimental methodology, etc. for approval before acceptance. It can be arbitrarily denied or revoked, or limited to different schedulings. The paperwork is not fun, and I discovered drug scheduling permissions don't necessarily transfer between sub-schedules, requiring frequent resubmission of paperwork, which is bureaucratic and annoying.

More applicable to most countries is the International Narcotics Control Board, whose restrictions are very similar to U.S. narcotic scheduling and listed precursors. Not every country follows this, though, as seen here:
http://www.undispatch.com/uruguay-vs-the-international-narco...

Ultimately, given the site rules, even if someone were able to verify U.S. law does not apply to them, and if they either don't violate INCB regulations or if they are not applicable to them, this moderator post sums up forum decorum:
https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=19...

John Doe - 11-11-2014 at 08:30

Quote: Originally posted by Furboffle  
my advice:
if you don't know what materials should be good to have on hand or labware, don't do it, legal advice don't do it period. I was in the same boat a couple years ago. I thought "oh I can do this" though i had a decent understanding of organic chemistry to begin with. I succesfully made 3 or 4 things from the pihkal and tihkal. you think its all legit "these things aren't scheduled here, I'm in the clear" that can't be further from the truth. if you want to persue this shit, get a chemistry degree and find a legitimate outlet studying these chemicals. theres nothing you can do at home thats legitimate. Shulgin just pumped the substances out and had the authorization to do so as long as he reported the info to the DEA, you're not going to get that privellage. this stuff is being studied academically. Dr. Dave Nichols works with all this crap at Perdue. get a degree and work with him.
I attempted it on my own and ended up having my place raided by county and city police squads, DEA, and a swat team and was charged with half a dozen felonies. worst experience you could ever imagine. its not worth it. luckily I had adjudication withheld so I have a clean record so I won't be hindered when I seek a legit job in the field once I finish grad school. I thought what I was doing was legal. definitely not. they don't care. everything in those books is an analogue to something scheduled. they will get you with the analogue act. if you want to make anything make something far from the realm of those books.

Dear Furboffle,

Thank you very much for your answer. I'm very sorry to hear about what happened with you because of your research, and I hope it will be as you say, it won't hind you anyway on your studies or future professional career. As for me, I have absolutely no intention of doing anything that I'm even a little bit unsure about; the advice I'm asking is for someone who's starting, who wants to perform simple experiments — and by that I mean the ones you find on Brent's Golden Book — at first and develop skills and knowledge over the years. I'm looking for the things I have to prioritize over others because of my specific interest, but this is something I will do over time, not right now. As I said before, by the time I'm actually synthesizing anything, I may as well have a degree. Who knows? Maybe I will have a Ph.D by then. :)

Again, thank you very much. I won't forget your advice.
Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
The poster claims not to be a U.S. citizen. While I do generally agree with what you are saying with regard to phenethylamines and tryptamines, the Controlled Substances Act and amendments don't apply to most countries in the same way the Federal Analog Act does in the States. Presumably the OP is immune (he seems to be South/Central American). Obviously anyone in the U.S. making analogs of schedule I and II narcotics is taking an expensive legal risk even if not intended for human consumption, unless they are properly licensed/certified (as many researchers are; I work/have worked in labs that used otherwise schedule I analogs for research, as well as schedule II and III narcotics).

Even in the U.K., Australia, Canada, etc. their laws tend to ban only explicitly listed substances, and it's unlikely all countries need you to be considered a professional to get the equivalent of Form 225 DEA approval, if this even exists in their jurisdiction. This form does require more than just reporting data to the DEA, and needs you to prove educational background, experimental methodology, etc. for approval before acceptance. It can be arbitrarily denied or revoked, or limited to different schedulings. The paperwork is not fun, and I discovered drug scheduling permissions don't necessarily transfer between sub-schedules, requiring frequent resubmission of paperwork, which is bureaucratic and annoying.

More applicable to most countries is the International Narcotics Control Board, whose restrictions are very similar to U.S. narcotic scheduling and listed precursors. Not every country follows this, though, as seen here:
http://www.undispatch.com/uruguay-vs-the-international-narco...

Ultimately, given the site rules, even if someone were able to verify U.S. law does not apply to them, and if they either don't violate INCB regulations or if they are not applicable to them, this moderator post sums up forum decorum:
https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=19...

Dear Chemosynthesis,

Things are indeed different in countries where the government itself does business and/or subsides illicit drugs production — which isn't helpful at all when you're not a member of the Party, or doesn't research the kind of stuff that would help them (the stuff they can and do sell). But that's another story — one big digression about my country per topic.

I'm being very careful about the way I write here, because I remember what Benjamin Franklin says on his Autobiography: "Caesar's wife must not only be honest but also appear to be honest". I'm sure I'm not doing, or asking, anything wrong, but I have to be careful as not to convey my ideas in a wrong way, so the other posters here won't believe I'm doing or intend to do anything foul — thus feeling morally obliged to NOT help me — and so Big People won't think I'm doing or intend to do anything illegal, therefore they won't do something nasty to me or to anyone who tries and helps me. I believe you know exactly what I want, but I must be sure others also understand that:

  1. I'm NOT synthesizing anything illegal, NOR asking help about how to do that.
  2. I DO NOT have the intention to perform any experiment on anything illegal and I'm NOT asking help about getting to that.
  3. I'm NOT trying to find a way to get "easy money". I want to study and learn.


For anyone who reads this topic, I want to setup a home lab, for study purposes, for performing simple experiments, but my ultimate intent is to study the substances I've already mentioned... but in the future, not now, not soon. I'm trying to set up a lab, but with an eye of the future, on the kind of setup I will need by the time when I'm ready to do the kind of experiment we're discussing. Fill in, here, all what "ready" would mean: having the knowledge, having the apparatus, having the substances, having a degree, having a official research permit and so on.

I actually believe I will believe I will start mostly like anyone here, but I do believe that, over time, the kind of thing you can find on a lab destined to study and/or manufacture of explosives would be different than another, destined to what I'm talking about here. I just want to find out the differences, the kind of thing that should have priority in acquisition and so on. That's just it.

Chemosynthesis, again, thank you very much for your contributions. I'm not exaggerating. Anything you can offer will be very welcome.

My best regards!

P.S.: The moderator post you've mentioned is very important and I believe it will deserve an "I do not" as well: I'm not a big guy, I'm just a beginner (in more than one sense, no more than a John Doe), and if I ever get to be "big" in anyway, I hope I will still be here but to help the way I can; many here, including you, have been good examples for me, I want to repay this someday by doing the same.

[Edited on 11-11-2014 by John Doe]

Little_Ghost_again - 12-11-2014 at 05:39

There are Biology courses in the UK that kind of cover this kind of thing, my dad teaches a module at university for the Bioenthanics course (not sure I got the name right) its the study of Botanics and alternative medicines from plants etc, he teaches a module that focuses on substances and there effect on embryo's.
Anyway the point is in this kind of course they go into some depth on psychoactive elements contained in plants and fungi, the course generally is taken by those that go onto courses etc that lead to study of poisons and work in hospitals on the pathology side. Please note at no point in this course are students taking any shit they extract!!! I am all for free choice and strongly believe if you allow alcohol then banning other substances is just wrong, but lets face it there are compounds in some plants you dont want to take with the attitude......I wonder what its going to feel like if I take X amount of this! That isnt science thats getting stoned and using science as an excuse.
Yes experiment on yourself freely if you wish to, but without doing all the other supporting stuff first its not right or fair to call it science (IMHO).

As an aside, my dad is a embryologist. and a scientist held in high regard, He does a lecture about drugs in schools, part of it involves a slide show on brain cells from a bird embryo exposed to chemicals from smoking and drinking at low levels. Having sat through his practice lecture a few times I can confirm 2 things

Stupid people exist

A great many of them had mothers that smoked and drank :D

Anyway I wish you well with your project, they say in woodwork measure twice cut once, in your case think twice take once ;)

Nicodem - 12-11-2014 at 06:25

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
Ultimately, given the site rules, even if someone were able to verify U.S. law does not apply to them, and if they either don't violate INCB regulations or if they are not applicable to them, this moderator post sums up forum decorum:
https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=19...

To clarify, this is an international forum. The laws of United States of America are not relevant to the authority of the forum administration in regard to forum moderation.
To further clarify the action taken against the linked thread, the term "research chemical" is meant as psychoactive drugs that are commercialized legally as "not for human consumption" (the "Made in China" drugs which are commonly called "research chemicals" by the drug users). The reason why we do not allow the discussion about these drugs is the same as the reason why we do not allow the discussion on the weaponization of energetic materials. The concept of "research chemicals" is an economical concept that has nothing to do with the amateur science. We do allow the discussion of the chemistry and pharmacology of psychoactive drugs, if a scientific discourse is used and if motivated by amateurism.

Given that many amateurs are hobby level chemists, they often lack analytical and other characterization equipment. It is to be expected that organoleptic characterization of compounds would be common among such people. There are few compounds that can be safely, or at least marginally safely, characterized organoleptically: pigments, fragrances, energetic materials and psychoactive compounds come to mind first (though there are others). Many psychoactive compounds have very weak physiological effects and are therefore generally safe for such experimentation (if done properly). In addition, some specific psychoactive compounds, like the psychedelics, can be used in multiple research: chemical synthesis and structure-activity relations from the scientific side, and on the other side the phenomenological research during their characterization.

Polverone - 12-11-2014 at 20:27

In case there were any doubt, I heartily second everything Nicodem says. I scrutinize posts about CNS-active substances closely because I don't want to help someone who wants to get rich or get high in a hurry, not because of US law. The First Amendment allows US citizens to legally write about the vast majority of illegal actions. It's up to members to decide their own comfort with taking risks, legal and otherwise.

I certainly won't ban discussions just because procedures may be against the law to perform by unlicensed persons or in a residential dwelling. I'd need to shut down most of the forum by that standard.

Chemosynthesis - 12-11-2014 at 22:47

Nicodem and Polverone, thank you very much for graciously correcting me. I was under the mistaken impression that you wished to avoid unnecessary interaction with law enforcement, which I know to contact website owners at times.

Part of my error was that I misunderstood a post on a rule that prohibits sale of items prohibited in the U.S. with discussion (this is a current rule?), thinking that there was an eventual forum policy change from its inception, similar to how a political discussion moratorium is currently instituted outside of Whimsy. I see now that I was mistaken and that this was actually not policy (https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=13...) nor is it now.

I hope not to have infringed upon any scientific discourse and will rectify my postings accordingly. I apologize to everyone for promulgating incorrect information as fact.

[Edited on 13-11-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

John Doe - 13-11-2014 at 09:02

Little_Ghost_again:

Dear sir,

That's exactly what I want: to do the supporting stuff first, as you say. I believe — as researches of the kind put to a halt because some unbelievable bans confirm — that the psychedelic substances are potentially useful on what comes to understanding some processes of the human mind — specially those which take place when something is amiss — and on therapy.

I also agree with you on something else: stupid people exist. The problem is when our lives and the good things we could otherwise do become conditioned by the thoughts and mis/preconceivings of stupid people — I live in a Communist country (not nominally, of course; we, with our fraudulent elections and illegal parties, are a "Democracy"), so I should know what I'm talking about; it's hard to cope with the situation you have when the worst of us decide (badly) for the best ones. I don't think I'm a genius or anything — I'm not under our rulers Raskholnikov's syndrome —, but I believe that if even small people like me, on the past, were kept from RESEARCHING what seriously interested them, because someone thought "it was danger to study it", we wouldn't even be here, now, accessing the Internet through computers.

Thank you very much for your contribution, sir!

Nicodem:

Dear Nicodem,

Thank you very much for the clarification and also for the ideas you've given about possibilities of research. I do believe that a responsible study of psychedelics can be useful and secure (the stress here being on the "responsible", what also involves knowledge and seriousness). If there's a margin of danger to them, to the psychedelics themselves, I do not believe the best attitude is to eliminate related research altogether; for the contrary: if the possible uses for health and knowledge purposes are not enough, the supposed danger of it is more reason for a deep study.

MDMA was used on therapy with impressive results . Some guys began to use it on partie. MDMA now is "forbidden stuff", so not used on therapy, and rarely (if so) researched anymore. MDMA is still used on parties, nevertheless. With the same reasoning that made they forbid MDMA, they did the same to precursors and many substances that can be (and are) used for different, useful things — even something "so simple" as studying, learning. Everyone here knows what happen if we go to a store and buy this or that substance, or some glassware: we get a visit from some kind people, who want to protect us from ourselves, and people from us. I believe that, despite the opinions any one may have about this kind of thing, we should at least be allowed to learn about it and to discuss, something that is not forbidden, yet, but surely seems to be (and some act like that).

Thank you very much for the kind of attitude you and the moderation display about this questions, the openness for discussion and for study.

Again, thank you also for your post.

Polverone:

Dear Polverone,

Thank you very much for your post here. Any clarifying is very welcome, as any further comment of yours will be.

My best regards!

Chemosynthesis:

Dear Chemosynthesis,

I just want to reiterate that I'm very thankful for all your contributions here. You gave me good ideas and helped me to better express what I wanted to convey here. You did that without asking for anything in return and with the best intentions, so if there was something wrong, it was compensated for the rest.

And, also, I'm on the same position here. I'm still beginning, trying to learn, and by the time I'm actually researching what I want, some time will have passed. I don't know if I will be able to live my country, to graduate, to become formally educated in this area, but despite that I will educate myself (EVEN if I get to a university, my education is my problem, so I consider what comes externally to be just a help that, if I couldn't do without, I wouldn't deserve and have use for anyway) and I'm happy to know that, even if I never get out of the "squalid guy doing experiments on the basement" condition, discussions and contributions of mine will still be welcome here. Again, I hope someday I will be in condition to help others here, the same way you all are helping me; I will strive to that.

My best regards to you! :)