2CP - - How bad is it?

Pace2008 wrote: »

There is a drug called 2C-P, and it is potentially dangerous based on the very limited information available on it. But it is incredibly obscure, to the extent that I don't even know anyone who knows anyone that's taken it, nor do I recall reading reading about anyone's experience of the drug. Maybe it has hit the streets in recent times though I seriously doubt it. Searching around various drug forums it hasn't been mentioned at all for the last few years, an if it were increasing in popularity it's highly likely to have been discussed.

2C-B is a far more common designer drug. Not as prevalent as the likes of pills or coke, but as many people as not who are into the clubbing scene will have taken it as some point. But again, it's very unlikely it's the drug to which you're referring. Taken as a pill, 2C-B lasts about 6 hours, 8 tops, and unlike the substance your friends took, the experience it produces is overwhelmingly positive. Like, I've never met anyone who's had a bad time on it. The visuals are intense but it doesn't have the headtrip of acid or mushrooms; you're fairly grounded in reality, albeit a weird and cartoonish one, for the whole experience. Not really suitable for a party environment but then no psychedelics really are.

Neither of these drugs are a "form of PCP," by the way, they are phenethlyamines that are structurally unrelated to angel dust.

So what else is there that could fit the description? Trippy piperazines, DOx chemicals ( somewhat similar in effect to LSD but much longer-lasting). designer drugs like 5-Meo-PCP. All extremely niche, none in widespread use and none particularly addictive.

I'm going to be honest OP, I'd have my ear to the ground more than you when it comes to this kind of thing and you're being led on by some scaremongers. There is no deadly hallucinogen sweeping the streets of Ireland, your 14-year-old nephew is not going to end up injecting it into his testicles and I'd focus my attention more on real and pertinent dangers if I were you, like him getting pissed up down in a field with the wrong crowd.

good stuff. solid post. drug scaremongering is seriously out of order most of the time

frank reynolds wrote: »

go hug a tree.

that's nonsense.

Great point, can you explain it further please?

frank reynolds wrote: »

i'll stay on the ground thanks.
weed and booze is plenty for anyone.

anyone taking these sort of drugs is not sane... or wont be for very long at least.

Plenty of what? You do know cannabis qualifies as a psychedelic right? If you eat it you can go to places that are just as wild as any LSD experience. So by your own reckoning you've taken 'these sorts of drugs' yourself and while you mightn't be insane, you are being ignorant.

kunst nugget wrote: »

As enjoyable as it may be when you're young, free and single, it's not a drug that's compatible with responsibilities like kids imo.

Not if you're actively looking after kids, but if you've a free weekend I see no problem with it.


Alcohol does have the benefit of being less potent (and not lasting as long), and so it's easier to manage levels of sobriety, but when comparing comparable levels of intoxication LSD wins hands down imo. Even for the responsible adult.

frank reynolds wrote: »

no it doesnt.

what i'm getting at, is there is a certain naivety within people who dont want to appear to be "normal" or "ordinary" and are taking these drugs as if its underground, and its totally the cool thing to do. it's not.

yeah i have taken these sorts of drugs and many others, i've taken a lot of drugs back in the day and wasnt an addict, i was young and naive, and thought it was cool. it's not.

you havent a clue WHY you would even defend this type of drug do you?

would you "recommend" that people should go out and take cocaine or heroin? WHy not? theyre as dangerous as any LSD or whatever, so what i'm getting at, is do people only take these sorts of "hippy" drugs to be cool and anti-establishment or what?

has weed become too mainstream for them?

anyway, all im saying is, i've done most drugs, and most of them are a waste of time. im lucky i didnt end up with serious issues from it, however, i do like to DISCOURAGE younger people from messing around with potentially deadly drugs, when there are plenty of safe things to be doing like smoke a few joints, and if you really want to go off the wall, have a few whiskeys.

i dont get this desire that some people have to be like yer man from fear and loathing in las vegas. its depressing.

people enjoy experimenting with drugs

frank reynolds wrote: »

i'll stay on the ground thanks.
weed and booze is plenty for anyone.

anyone taking these sort of drugs is not sane... or wont be for very long at least.

I love the way some people can spout the auld "the only drugs anyone should be taking are the ones i happen to take myself" line, like it actually makes a word of sense!

I want to be a hippy and i want to get stoned, on maraaaa marajuana:D


I'm not a hippy by the way, and i very rarely get stoned. However, i do like psychedelics, all to rarely these days too. I've never tried 2cb but from what i hear and what i've read, it seems harmless enough unless you have some sort of latent pschological problem (which in my case would have been well rattled loose by now, so i reckon i'm fine)
You pays your money and you takes your chances. As the Corminator might say - that's how i roll:D
I might make a hippy yet!

frank reynolds wrote: »

no it doesnt.

what i'm getting at, is there is a certain naivety within people who dont want to appear to be "normal" or "ordinary" and are taking these drugs as if its underground, and its totally the cool thing to do. it's not.

Yes, anybody who does drugs to impress other people is seriously misinformed. But to make a blanket generalisation(like you did previously) about the people who take these kind of drugs and the outcome of such behaviour is in itself naive.

I have taken psychedelics in the past because I believed it would benefit me, that's the only reason.

frank reynolds wrote: »

yeah i have taken these sorts of drugs and many others, i've taken a lot of drugs back in the day and wasnt an addict, i was young and naive, and thought it was cool. it's not.

You were messing with powerful drugs for the wrong reasons without being properly informed and you made it out without damaging yourself, congratualtion on being one of the lucky ones. Today the internet means being uninformed is a choice, not an excuse; the science, facts and literature are out there for anyone to read and make up their own minds. I didn't do acid because I thought it'd be a great way to pass the time(which it was, because I was prepared and secure), I looked at the facts and thought it would be beneficial to me.

frank reynolds wrote: »

you havent a clue WHY you would even defend this type of drug do you?

would you "recommend" that people should go out and take cocaine or heroin? WHy not? theyre as dangerous as any LSD or whatever, so what i'm getting at, is do people only take these sorts of "hippy" drugs to be cool and anti-establishment or what?

has weed become too mainstream for them?

I argue for the right to take psychedelic drugs because I believe that people deserve to be informed and have the right to choose how to live their own lives. I was raised well, to be a critical thinker, to be responsible, to find out things for myself and make my own decision, I was not raised to think illegal drug taking was the right thing to do and was staunchly opposed to the idea of doing so until it became too difficult to ignore the facts.

Every drug is different, in their chemisty, their action and how they affect people; that's why you don't get perscribed benzos for a cold; I would strongly advise people to not become regular heroin or cocaine users because they're both physically harmful and addictive, LSD on the other hand isn't physically harmful and can actually help with addiction.

(Taken from the Economist's website.)

Studies put LSD on the opposite end of the harm scale to heroin, cocaine and alcohol(which you're seemingly okay with), so why are you arguing against them.

frank reynolds wrote: »

anyway, all im saying is, i've done most drugs, and most of them are a waste of time. im lucky i didnt end up with serious issues from it, however, i do like to DISCOURAGE younger people from messing around with potentially deadly drugs, when there are plenty of safe things to be doing like smoke a few joints, and if you really want to go off the wall, have a few whiskeys.

What does 'waste of time' mean? Isn't going out and enjoying yourself the absolute perfect waste of time?

The truth is every drug has it's cost, whether it be liver damage and a hangover(and maybe an unwanted pregnancy) from alcohol or the potential anxiety of a bad trip(because the user took the drug in the wrong setting, with the wrong people around or when they weren't in the right headspace).

If you want to save people from harm, get them informed and educated as to why moderation is the best choice. It's got a better chance of working then horror stories and empty threats.

frank reynolds wrote: »

i dont get this desire that some people have to be like yer man from fear and loathing in las vegas. its depressing.

Hunter S. Thompson eventually paid for how he lived his life but at least he lived it exactly how he wanted, all while managing to have more fun the most of boards' users put together. A life well spent!

Yes, people who want to be 'like' Thompson have missed the point of life entirely but so have the bankers, callous CEO's and religious zealots; in fact, most people will realise they've wasted their lives on their death beds. Life's funny like that, so laugh and live it instead of worrying about other people.

DeVito would agree with me.