|
Sulfurous Samadhi: Table of Contents Intro Chemistry History Stolaroff Survey Hardison's Survey User Survey Pharmacology Legal Conclusion Appendices: User Quotes: 2C-T-2 2C-T-7 Comparisons Synthesis: Product Lit: |
Conclusion by Murple, Feb 6, 2001 This paper has been a fascinating project, and I hope that it will help to characterize two very interesting molecules. However, like almost all research, I feel that it has raised more questions than it has answered. Early 2000, when this project was first conceived, 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7 were obscure and vaguely defined psychedelics. Today, they remain relatively obscure, but their personalities have been manifested to a much greater degree. Until recently, 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7 were seen by many as being mere substitutes for 2C-B or mescaline, having no real uniquenesses of their own. This belief may go a long way toward explaining why neither 2C-T-2 nor 2C-T-7 have been the subject of much scientific investigation. Furthermore, the identities of both drugs have long been blurred. An interesting lesson in the power of speaking first may be found in this story. Writing in PiHKAL, Alexander Shulgin states "There is a considerable parallel between 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7, and both have proven to be excellent tools for introspection. The differences are largely physical. With 2C-T-2, there is more of a tendency to have physical disturbances such as nausea and diarrhea. And the experience is distinctly shorter. With 2C-T-7, physical disturbances are less common, but you are into the effects for almost twice as long." Based on this one paragraph, many people have concluded that 2C-T-2 is simply a shorter and inferior version of 2C-T-7. It has to be remembered that every person responds differently to every drug, and that Shulgin's statement is true only for himself and for people he has observed using the drugs. By virtue of being the first person to write about these two drugs however, his opinion has been taken by many as gospel. As more people have used these drugs, it has become clear that Shulgin's results are not universal. For many people, 2C-T-2 is the superior drug. The results of my user surveys ironically show a higher incidence of physical discomfort among 2C-T-7 users. It also has become clear that the two differ not only in side effects but also in primary effects. Most people who have tried both find that they have significant differences in the states of mind they can produce as well as significant differences in the quality and quantity of visual effects. The two are clearly different drugs with different effects profiles. As an added testimony to the power of suggestion, I was amused when I spoke with several people who thought they had tried both 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7. Each of these people was emphatic about having had much better experiences with 2C-T-7 than with 2C-T-2. All insisted that 2C-T-7 was much gentler on the body. Upon further questioning, it turned out that they had obtained both drugs in the Netherlands, and that the 2C-T-7 they had tried was in fact the mislabelled 2C-T-2. As Shulgin describes in PIHKAL, new drugs come into the world as blank slates. With each time it is taken by a human, its personality is manifested more and more. Over time, we can form a fairly clear image of a drug's nature, though as with a person, we can never really know everything there is to know. Both 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7 have grown up rapidly in the past four years. It seems clear that both are fairly typical members of the phenethylamine family, with much in common with Mother Mescaline and their older sibling 2C-B. Each has their own personality, however. Both also remain children, and there remains much to learn. Several areas seem worthy of further study by those who are better equipped than I for scientific research. First, toxicological studies need to be carried out to determine what the risk factors are. This goes especially for 2C-T-7, which has been linked to some worrisome incidents. It is crucial that we determine whether the death of Jake Duroy and the other reported incidents were due to some unknown pharmacological actions, were overdoses, or were simply freak accidents. Hand in hand with this, experiments to determine the receptor affinities of each drug as well as their metabolic pathways may provide useful information. The unusual reaction to 2C-T-7 described in the pharmacology section by the man taking beta-blocker medications seems particularly interesting, considering that mescaline is suspected of competing for alpha-adrenergic receptors but appears not to interact with beta-adrenergic receptors. Investigating the receptor affinities of 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7 may shed some light on unanswered questions about mescaline's pharmacology. As for metabolic pathways, I suspect it would be worthwhile to try and compare the metabolism of 2C-T-2 versus 2C-T-7. When comparing reports from users, 2C-T-7 produces dramatically variable responses in different people, with some people having strong trips at 10 mg and others barely feeling 50 mg. With 2C-T-2, dosages seem to be much more consistent from person to person. This different response has been reported even by people who have tried both drugs. It seems possible that some difference in the way each drug is metabolized could be responsible for this phenomenon. Another direction worthy of further research, one which I may pursue myself in the near future, would be more user surveys. First, it would be nice to get more data on 2C-T-2 versus 2C-T-7, asking similar questions to those asked on the survey I conducted for this paper. Nearly ten times the number of 2C-T-7 surveys were received, making direct comparison somewhat difficult. This was rather disappointing, as I expected much more response on 2C-T-2 owing to its popularity in Europe a few years ago. Beyond this, I feel it would be productive to try to gather data on more subjective points. Some questions which seem appropriate would include questions on the duration of the experience, the intensity levels of various effects such as visuals, euphoria, panic, and insights or revelations. Again, I feel it important to try to compare 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7. Casual analysis of published first hand reports seems to indicate that the two drugs produce substantially different subjective effects, and trying to quantify these differences would help to establish what strengths and weaknesses each drug may have as potential tools for psychotherapy, creativity enhancement, or spiritual practices. Both 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7 are drugs which I feel have significant potential. As tools for therapy, both seem to promote very insightful states of mind, and allow the well-intentioned user to step outside of emotional entanglements and review their lives objectively, acceptingly, and compassionately. Others report emotional opening and release, and increased empathy with people. Many reports describe long lasting feelings of optimism, happiness, and personal growth following experiences with either drug. Both drugs also hold great promise as spiritual tools, enabling easier access to meditative states. In particular, 2C-T-7 seems to be associated with a very centered state, and the increased body awareness and flexibility it produces seems very conducive to practices such as yoga and tai chi. Both drugs have been reported by users as opening the heart chakra. As with most psychedelics, there seems great potential for the use of both drugs as sources of creative inspiration. Along with the potential for benefit, both drugs also present potential risks. This seems especially true for 2C-T-7, although this could be a distortion of the facts caused by a much smaller sample size of 2C-T-2 users responding to the surveys, or a reflection of the fact that many 2C-T-2 users seem to be more cautious and educated than many 2C-T-7 users. While there have been no significant incidents reported involving 2C-T-2, it is better to be too cautious than not cautious enough. Used in moderation, both drugs seem to be quite safe. While there have been several serious incidents reported, we need to remember that this represents only a tiny fraction of total uses. There have been fewer than ten incidents of concern, out of thousands of total uses. This record looks even better when considering some of the reckless dosages taken by many people. The biggest risk of course is that the risk factors are not really known. Until more research is done, it would be wise to proceed carefully. People taking 2C-T-2 or 2C-T-7 should avoid mixing them with other drugs; if someone does decide to try a drug combination, it would be a good idea to start with a lower than normal dose. People with potentially life threatening medical conditions should avoid taking 2C-T-2 or 2C-T-7, or at least start with very low doses. The most common cause of bad reactions to any drug is taking too much. This definitely applies to both 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7. Many users are careless about dosage measurement, using ineffective techniques such as the graph paper method or even just guessing. Large doses of either drug, but particularly 2C-T-7, can lead to states of extreme confusion and detatchment from physical reality. This can lead to panic reactions, toxic psychosis, and physical injuries due to being unaware of one's surroundings. It is even possible that with a large enough dose, death due to overdose toxicity could occur. In my opinion, many people who are taking such large doses are missing the point of these drugs. People taking extremely large doses often mention that they are seeking powerful visual effects. While 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7 can both be extremely visual drugs, I don't feel that these are the primary focus of the experience. I feel that the primary strength of these drugs lies in their effects on the thought processes and emotions, subtle effects which are optimally experienced in lower dosages than are required for the overpowering visuals. I believe that the state many of the visual seekers are trying to achieve are in fact mild overdoses, as physical discomfort can become quite pronounced at such dosage levels. While I firmly believe in the right of these people to take such doses if that makes them happy, they may wish to consider turning to drugs such as DMT which produce intense visuals in more reasonable dosages, with much less physical side effects. First time users of either drug should limit their doses to 10 to 15 mg orally. One other suggestion for minimizing bad reactions is to take these drugs orally. Other routes carry much higher risk of accidentally taking too much, due to the much smaller dosage ranges involved. Although a very popular method, snorting these drugs dramatically increases the variety, intensity, and duration of side effects. Of all the bad reactions which have been reported, whether physical or psychological, the overwhelming majority involved cases where the drug was insufflated. In addition to the much smaller dose ranges involved, the rapid onset of effects can take many people by surprise. Rather than a serene and gradual two hour ramp up when taken orally, snorting it can result in a very sudden and rapid catapulting into an extremely altered state of mind. Oral doses offer fewer side effects, a wider margin of error in dose measurement, and a gentler transition into the experience. In addition, there is none of the intense pain nor the potential for damage to the nasal passeges which are present when snorting them. I strongly discourage taking either 2C-T-2 or 2C-T-7 by any route other than by mouth. I feel one of the most important things people need to realize about both drugs is that they are still experimental drugs. In the end, it is very likely that research will show them both to be very safe and useful drugs - but until that research has been done, it is important to be respectful of the experimental nature of 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7. It is also possible that research will show them to be dangerous drugs which work very differently from mescaline. Anyone considering using them should keep this in mind and not use the drugs recklessly. Use low doses, and take long breaks between uses of either drug. You can always take a higher dose next time, but you can't go back and untake some if you take too much and have a bad reaction. Avoid putting these chemicals in the hands of people who you do not honestly believe can use them responsibly. I firmly believe that people have the right to be irresponsible and self-destructive, but at the same time I also believe that those of us who know better should not go out of our ways to help them. The right to be stupid can not and must not be hindered if we are to live in a free and civilized society. That doesn't mean it should be encouraged, however. Chemistry has given us two very interesting chemicals in 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7. Both hold great promise as tools to benefit mankind. Let's learn what we can about them, and perhaps then we may learn from them. This research paper has been brought to you by the letter Þ and by the number 42.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |